Bakst, Daren
MERRI OK
fedsoc note ATI
GUT CLIMATE SCI OCEAN SENSOR NOAA PJT 2025 FUCKERY KENNY STEIN IER heritage
NCA?
locke --> heritage (but test w/ cooke locke)
wm kovacs
compelled speech?
CEI MARLO LEWIS LASSMAN
ENERGY POVERTY
---
Daren Bakst
Material Contributors - What Does Project 2025 Say?
Authored the section about: Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture
Served in the Trump Administration: No.
In His Own Words
In this March 20241 article authored by Daren Bakst, he claims that EPA rules about tailpipe emissions amount to “a chilling abuse of power” and “wanton disregard for individual freedom”, rather than as protective of the environment.
Full Bio
Daren Bakst is Deputy Director, Center for Energy and Environment, and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Before joining CEI, Daren was a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, where he played a leading role in the launch of the organization’s new energy and environmental center. For a decade, he led Heritage’s food and agricultural policy work, and he edited and co-authored Heritage’s book Farms and Free Enterprise. He has testified numerous times before Congress, has appeared frequently on media outlets, and has played leadership roles in such organizations such as the Federalist Society, American Agricultural Law Association, and Food and Drug Law Institute (serving on the Food and Drug Law Journal’s editorial advisory board).
Enemy of affordability: The radical climate agenda
- By: Daren Bakst
- 05/21/2026
For decades, some lawmakers and other proponents of radical climate policies have given little consideration to the adverse effects on consumers and the poor. Often,…
---
---
GGL 6 26
AI Overview
Daren Bakst is a prominent free-market policy expert who serves as the Director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is closely tied to the other mentioned entities through a shared network of conservative think tanks, foundations, and advocacy organizations. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The specific connections between Daren Bakst, the John Locke Foundation, and the groups you listed include: []
- John Locke Foundation (JLF): Bakst previously served as the Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies for this Raleigh-based, free-market think tank. The JLF is heavily supported by the
John William Pope Foundation. [1, 2]
- Art Pope (POPE) & Koch: Art Pope (the retail mogul and conservative benefactor) is a director of Americans for Prosperity (a group backed by the Koch brothers) and a major funder of the JLF. Through his own foundation, Pope has provided extensive financial support to both state-level free-market policy work and national groups. , [2]
- Institute for Humane Studies (IHS): The
Institute for Humane Studies is a non-profit organization promoting classical liberalism. Art Pope has served on its Board of Directors alongside executives from the 
Charles Koch Foundation. [1, 2, 3]
- HUMANE: While "HUMANE" could refer to general humane society organizations or animal welfare interests, Bakst himself frequently wrote about property rights and deregulatory solutions to agricultural and environmental policy (as opposed to animal rights or "humane" regulations). In political-science circles, references to "humane" in this conservative network often intersect with "humane ecology" discussions, such as those related to environmental policies. [1, 2, 3]
---
OFF BS 6 26
*The following bio is that of an event speaker or guest author. This person is not directly affiliated with the John Locke Foundation.
Daren Bakst is Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy at the Heritage Foundation. In this position, Bakst studies and writes about agricultural and environmental policy and property rights, among other issues. He has done extensive work on the farm bill and is taking the lead on Heritage’s efforts to reshape the farm bill debate well before any new farm bill is proposed. His agriculture portfolio is extremely broad, covering everything from agricultural subsidies, agricultural trade, to food policy issues such as GMO food labeling and the FDA’s de facto artificial trans-fat ban.
In the environmental arena, Bakst does a significant amount of work on the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other critical environmental statutes. His recent efforts have focused extensively on the EPA and the Corps’ “Waters of the United States” rule, as well as EPA’s proposed ozone standards. As a long-time proponent of strengthening property rights, Bakst has been promoting the need for eminent domain reform in light of the 10-year anniversary of the infamous Kelo v. City of New London case.
Bakst frequently submits comments to regulatory agencies and has appeared in or been quoted by a wide range of media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Times, CNN, Fox Business News, Al-Jazeera America, and U.S. News and World Report.
Before joining the Heritage Foundation, Bakst was a policy counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he focused on regulatory reform, environmental policy, as well as food and agricultural policy. He served as the executive to the association’s Government Oversight, Operations & Consumer Affairs committee, which was responsible for issues such as regulatory process reform.
He worked for seven years at the John Locke Foundation, where he served as director of legal and regulatory studies. His broad portfolio included constitutional law, energy and environmental policy, and property rights.
Bakst serves on the Federalist Society’s Environmental Law and Property Rights Executive Committee and was a member of the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council. He also serves on the College Level Advisory Board for Constituting America, an organization that informs and educates about the importance of the U.S. Constitution.
Bakst, who hails from West Palm Beach, Fla., received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from George Washington University. A licensed attorney, he holds a law degree from University of Miami and a master of laws degree from American University.
---
STORM
Listed as lobbyist by registrants:
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2012 - 2013)
Lobbied on behalf of:
---
GGL 6 26
[### John Locke Foundation (JLF)
DeSmog
https://www.desmog.com › Database Entries](https://www.desmog.com/john-locke-foundation/)
The John Locke Foundation's Daren Bakst, of their Research Division, gave a presentation to the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Energy ...Read more
Missing: IHS | Show results with: IHS
[### Energy and environmental issues
John Locke Foundation
https://www.johnlocke.org › energy-and-environmental...](https://www.johnlocke.org/energy-and-environmental-issues-2/)
In addition to his radio duties, Daren Bakst discussed energy and environmental issues in writing this week. His syndicated column (published in the Lincoln ...Read more
Missing: KOCH POPE IHS HUMANE
[### JLF's Daren Bakst explains how many global warming ...
Carolina Journal
https://www.carolinajournal.com › video › jlfs-daren-ba...](https://www.carolinajournal.com/video/jlfs-daren-bakst-explains-how-many-global-warming-policies-hurt-the-poor/)
Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation legal and regulatory policy analyst, discusses “The Environmental Movement's Policies to Address Global Warming: An Attack ...Read more
NO CONTENT VID?
Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation legal and regulatory policy analyst, discusses “The Environmental Movement’s Policies to Address Global Warming: An Attack on the Poor.” Bakst delivered these remarks during a Politics, Law, and Economics Lecture Nov. 10, 2009, at Campbell University.
[### Annexation, carbon regulation, and 'government greed' ...
John Locke Foundation
https://www.johnlocke.org › annexation-carbon-regulat...](https://www.johnlocke.org/annexation-carbon-regulation-and-government-greed-oh-my/)
Dec 4, 2008 — ... of North Carolina's annexation law. John Locke Foundation Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst Daren Bakst spearheaded an effort to gather ...Read more
Missing: KOCH POPE IHS HUMANE
People also ask
---
6 25 OFF BS CEI
...
Daren Bakst
Director of the Center for Energy and Environment and Senior Fellow
Energy and Environment
Lands and Wildlife
Property Rights
John Berlau
Senior Fellow and Director of Finance Policy
Banking and Finance
Deregulation
Financial Regulation
Soriya Chhe
Senior Counsel
CEI Litigation
Law and Litigation
Legal Studies
Clyde Wayne Crews
Fred L. Smith Fellow in Regulatory Studies
Business and Government
Consumer Freedom
Deregulation
Ondray T. Harris
General Counsel
Law and Litigation
Sean Higgins
Research Fellow
Deregulation
Labor and Employment
Sam Kazman
Counsel Emeritus
Antitrust
Automobiles and Roads
Banking and Finance
Paige Lambermont
Research Fellow
Capitalism and Free Enterprise
Energy
Energy and Environment
Kent Lassman
President and CEO
Capitalism
Deregulation
Innovation
Marlo Lewis, Jr.
Senior Fellow
Climate
Energy
Energy and Environment
Ben Lieberman
Senior Fellow
Climate
Consumer Freedom
Energy
Jessica Melugin
Director of the Center for Technology & Innovation
Antitrust
Innovation
Media, Speech and Internet Freedoms
Richard Morrison
Senior Fellow
Antitrust
Business and Government
Capitalism and Free Enterprise
Marin Murdock
Associate Counsel
CEI Litigation
Law and Litigation
Iain Murray
Vice President for Strategy and Senior Fellow
Banking and Finance
Trade and International
Jeremy Nighohossian
Senior Fellow and Economist
Healthcare
Brian A. Rankin
Adjunct Fellow
Tech and Telecom
Telecommunications
Alex Reinauer
Research Fellow
Antitrust
Innovation
Tech and Telecom
Steve Swedberg
Finance and Monetary Policy Analyst
Banking and Finance
Deregulation
Financial Regulation
Jacob Tomasulo
Policy Analyst
Climate
Energy
Energy and Envir....
---
alec crit infra 2017 ltr
https://www.scribd.com/document/371677094/ALEC-letter
---
pjt 2025
Daren Bakst is Deputy Director, Center for Energy and Environment, and Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Before joining CEI, Daren was a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, where he played a leading role in the launch of the organization’s new energy and environmental center. For a decade, he led Heritage’s food and agricultural policy work, and he edited and co-authored Heritage’s book Farms and Free Enterprise. He has testified numerous times before Congress, has appeared frequently on media outlets, and has played leadership roles in such organizations such as the Federalist Society, American Agricultural Law Association, and Food and Drug Law Institute (serving on the Food and Drug Law Journal’s editorial advisory board).
---
NOT FOUND
[### Thirty Years, $10 Trillion—and Absolutely Zero Impact on ...
Facebook · Political Debate
2 comments · 3 months ago](https://www.facebook.com/groups/950642862921772/posts/1654092175910167/)
The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded. ... Daren Bakst, who directs the Center for Energy and Environment at ...Read more
---
Page 676: Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. … The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.
Page 677: Scientific agencies like NOAA* are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area.
---
[### White House Plan Calls for NOAA Research Programs ...
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › noaa-research-budget-cuts](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/climate/noaa-research-budget-cuts.html)
Apr 13, 2025 — ... the preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.” Advertisement. SKIP ADVERTISEMENT. “It would take the U.S. back to the ...Read more
NO LNX
White House Plan Calls for NOAA Research Programs to Be Dismantled
A Trump administration budget proposal would essentially eliminate one of the world’s foremost Earth sciences research operations.
By Austyn Gaffney
Published April 11, 2025
Updated April 13, 2025
See more of our coverage in your search results.
Trump administration officials are recommending the elimination of the scientific research division at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, according to internal documents obtained by The New York Times and several people with knowledge of the situation.
The proposal from the Office of Management and Budget would abolish the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research office at NOAA, one of the world’s premiere Earth sciences research centers.
A budget allocation of just over $170 million, down from about $485 million in 2024, would hobble science as varied as early warning systems for natural disasters, science education for students in kindergarten through high school, and the study of the Arctic, where temperatures have increased nearly four times as fast as the rest of the planet over the past four decades.
“At this funding level, O.A.R. is eliminated as a line office,” the proposal states.
Programs that retained funding, including research into tornado warnings and ocean acidification, would be relocated to the National Weather Service and National Ocean Service offices.
The outline for the 2026 budget passback, which would need to be approved by Congress, suggests “significant reductions to education, grants, research, and climate-related programs within NOAA” and comes after the dismantling of other agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the United States Agency for International Development, and the removal of mentions of climate change from federal websites.
Under the proposal, the total budget for the Commerce Department would be nearly $7.7 billion, a reduction of more than $2.5 billion from 2025 levels. According to the document, the budget would refocus on activities more in line with the Trump administration’s agenda, including enforcing trade laws and collecting scientific observations like ocean and weather data to support forecasting.
“This Administration’s hostility toward research and rejection of climate science will have the consequence of eviscerating the weather forecasting capabilities that this plan claims to preserve,” Representative Zoe Lofgren, the senior Democrat on the House Sciences Committee, said in an emailed statement.
NOAA, which takes up more than half of the Commerce Department budget, would receive just over $4.4 billion, a reduction of $1.6 billion from 2025.
“It’s not surprising, but it’s very disturbing,” said Rick Spinrad, who led NOAA under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
That includes reducing the budget for the National Marine Fisheries Service by one-third. The office would be split from NOAA and moved to the Interior Department’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grants that fund species recovery and habitat conservation would be eliminated.
Funding for National Ocean Service, a branch of NOAA, would be cut in half. Programs like the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, an office within the ocean service that studies corals, pollution, and the effect of climate change and sea-level rise on coastal communities, would not be funded.
The National Centers for Environmental Information, which archives climate data, would lose a quarter of its funding.
The proposal would also alter NOAA’s satellite and space programs.
It would gut the Office of Space Commerce and relocate the Space Weather Prediction Center to the Department of Homeland Security. A program called the Traffic Coordination System for Space that was set to take over the monitoring of satellite traffic from the Department of Defense, a kind of traffic police for outer space, would also lose funding. The passback suggests having such work done by the private sector.
The satellite program that provides data for weather forecasting and modeling would also be downsized. The longstanding relationship that helps NOAA acquire satellites through NASA would also be terminated.
Dr. Spinrad said the likelihood that this budget, as proposed by the White House, would pass Congress was low. “I don’t think it will withstand congressional scrutiny.”
The passback is part of balancing the federal budget, according to the document, which includes “eliminating the federal government’s support of woke ideology.”
Project 2025, a document that has been used as a blueprint for an overhaul of the federal government under the Trump administration, included a goal to break up NOAA and downsize its research arm.
“It begs the question, is the Trump Administration intentionally breaking our weather forecasting capabilities as an excuse to carry out the dangerous Project 2025 proposal to privatize the Weather Service?” Ms. Lofgren said in a statement.
Project 2025, which was published by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy research organization, called NOAA Research “the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism” and said “the preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.”
“It would take the U.S. back to the 1950s in technical and scientific skill,” said Craig McLean, chief scientist at NOAA under both the first Trump presidency and President Biden, of the proposed budget.
Alexandra McCandless, an OMB spokesperson, said “No final funding decisions have been made.”
The agency has until noon on April 15 to appeal the proposal. And it has until April 24 to submit plans for many of the overhauls the passback suggests, even before the proposal has been addressed by Congress.
On Thursday, probationary government employees who had been fired in February, and then reinstated by a judge, received an email from the Department of Commerce firing them again after the decision was reversed by a higher court. A so-called reduction in force plan could slash an additional 20 percent of its work force in the coming weeks.
Austyn Gaffney is a reporter covering climate and a member of the 2024-25 Times Fellowship class, a program for journalists early in their careers.
A version of this article appears in print on April 13, 2025, Section A, Page 25 of the New York edition with the headline: Plan Calls for End to NOAA’s Research. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
Share full article
---
[### White House outlines plan to gut NOAA, smother climate ...
E&E News by POLITICO
https://www.eenews.net › Articles](https://www.eenews.net/articles/white-house-outlines-plan-to-gut-noaa-smother-climate-research/)
Apr 11, 2025 — ... the “preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded.” The OMB document outlines a plan to break up NOAA's space weather ...Read more
---
https://theintercept.com/**2022/09/**16/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-free-speech/
REPS. JAMIE RASKIN, D-Md., and Katie Porter, D-Calif., probably didn’t plan for their committee hearings to run at the exact same time this week, but the hearings sure were talking to each other.
In her Committee on Natural Resources hearing, Porter highlighted the role PR firms play in blocking climate policy. Rep. Blake Moore, R-Utah, and his selected witness, Amy Cooke, CEO of the conservative John Locke Foundation, expressed concern that preventing companies and their hired PR firms from spreading misinformation about climate change would have a chilling effect on free speech.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, chaired by Raskin, focused on free speech attacks against environmentalists, digging into the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to curb citizens’ speech rights via strategic litigation and laws that criminalize protest. Taken together, the two are a perfect illustration of the industry’s First Amendment strategy: expand free speech for corporations, curb it for citizens.
raskin’s free speech hearing focused on two key tactics: the increased filing of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs— defamation suits aimed at penalizing citizens or citizen groups for exercising their First Amendment rights — and theproliferation of so-called critical infrastructure bills, which pile on fines and criminal sentences for those caught trespassing or vandalizing near pipelines, power plants, railroads, or other infrastructure. These anti-protest bills were a direct industry backlash to the Standing Rock protests in 2016 and 2017. Starting with a law passed in Oklahoma in 2017, they proliferated with the help of the industry group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts and disseminates pro-corporate model legislation for adoption by state governments. Seventeen states now have critical infrastructure laws on the books, with several more considering proposals.
####
“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin,” said Deepa Padmanabha, deputy general counsel for Greenpeace and a witness at Raskin’s hearing. “They’re tactics used by the same corporate actors to quash dissent. They’re pushing legislation to silence us, to criminalize our critiques through anti-protest bills. And they’re also filing SLAPP suits to silence dissent.”
Greenpeace has dealt with both. Greenpeace USA activists were arrested in 2019 under Texas’s felony critical infrastructure law for unfurling banners on a bridge, which temporarily blocked shipping. The goal of the action was to highlight the connection between the oil industry and climate change.
Greenpeace is engaged in active litigation in a couple of SLAPP suits too. In one, Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued the organization for its role in the Standing Rock protests. The suit was initially filed in federal court and invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, orRICO, a law designed to prosecute organized crime. “Energy Transfer was alleging that our advocacy work to uplift Indigenous voices at Standing Rock constituted organized crime,” Padmanabha said.
Because RICO allows for damages to be tripled if a defendant is found guilty, Greenpeace faced a $1 billion fine. Losing that suit would have had a truly chilling effect on free speech. A federal judge threw out the case, but Energy Transfer filed again in North Dakota (minus the RICO charge), a state that doesn’t have an anti-SLAPP law on the books.
“SLAPPs and anti-protest bills are really two sides of the same coin.”
Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants a quick way to get SLAPP suits dismissed, minimizing the time and money spent on meritless cases. Currently, 31 states and the District of Columbia have adopted anti-SLAPP statutes, which makes it fairly easy for corporate entities to go venue shopping for a court in a state without such a law. To address that gap, Raskin proposed new legislation this week to create federal anti-SLAPP protection. While some players in the fossil fuel industry may oppose Raskin’s bill, others have actually sought to avail themselves of anti-SLAPP protections. Exxon Mobil, for example, in its final attempt to thwart the fraud case against it in Massachusetts, argued that the suit was a SLAPP.
The oil company’s attorney Justin Anderson maintained that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s fraud complaint against Exxon was not valid because the company’s public statements on climate policy should be considered political opinion (“petitioning activity,” in legal parlance), not misleading advertising — even when Exxon falsely claimed that climate change wasn’t real and overstated the company’s investments in low-carbon technology.
When one judge asked why Exxon would file an anti-SLAPP complaint rather than make a First Amendment argument in court, Anderson made clear that the point was to avoid discovery, when the corporation would be asked to hand over files and make its executives available for depositions. “The anti-SLAPP statute provides a mechanism to have a case that is brought against someone for petitioning activity dismissed at the outset before burdensome discovery is imposed on the party,” he argued.
The “petitioning activity” argument is one that the industry and its allies have trotted out repeatedly, both in court and in congressional hearings like those held this week. It’s a broad interpretation of free speech rights for corporations, the very sort of protection these same companies are opposed to extending to individuals. In his testimony before Raskin’s subcommittee,Daren Bakst, a senior research fellow on environmental policy and regulation for the Heritage Foundation, said, “The chilling effects are states bringing lawsuits against people for their speech.” It’s hard to tell because he said “people,” but he meant oil companies. Which he made clear by immediately referencing “what municipalities are doing, the government is doing against these fossil fuel companies. And I also see that Massachusetts is doing.”
:{:{This view of an oil company as a person who is being silenced for simply sharing their views on climate policy is the basic argument oil companies are making in dozens of cases across the country.}: These cases, brought by both municipalities and states, hinge either on fraud or nuisance claims and effectively ask that fossil fuel companies pay up for delaying action on climate, which increased both the impacts of the climate crisis and the price of adapting to a warming world.
In all of them, the corporate defendants make some version of a free speech argument. They maintain that their public speech about global warming differed from their internal knowledge because their public statements were “petitioning speech,” related to their political views and desires and thus, protected. The industry has been building the foundation for such an argument for about as long as it has known about climate change — since the late 1960s.}:
“They will try to defend their misinformation efforts as political speech covered by the First Amendment and not subject to false advertising laws.”
The argument arose out of a situation not unlike the one playing out today, with war driving up prices at the pump and oil companies desperate to control public perception.
According to documents from Mobil’s corporate archive at the University of Texas at Austin, the company’s longtime PR whiz Herbert Schmertz and then-CEO, Rawleigh Warner, came up with an idea to help wrestle back control of the narrative. Using Mobil’s PR and advertising budget, they would create “idea advertising” to push the company’s take on key issues of the day and create the sense of Mobil as a citizen with a distinct personality.
They ran weekly :{advertorial:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:s in the New York Times as well as regular placements in a wide range of other publications, from the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal to Time and Fortune. Then Schmertz proposed TV and radio too. Why not?
In the early 1970s, Mobil took their TV and radio advertorials to all the big broadcast stations and only one, NBC, agreed to run them. CBS and ABC said they preferred to have their journalists cover energy issues. For Schmertz and Warner, it was a battle they had to win. What if the newspapers, or PBS, started to rethink playing nice with Mobil? In a media blitz, the two blasted CBS and ABC from every angle, in their NYT spot, on radio and TV programs, at events. Warner went to various business clubs to talk about the importance of protecting corporate free speech. Schmertz testified before Congress in 1978, urging First Amendment protection for Mobil’s ads and arguing that there was no difference between Mobil advertorials and New York Times editorials, because after all the Times was a business too.
Mobil helped rally support and funding for the first big Supreme Court case on the matter, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the precursor to Citizens United. The court ruled that corporations could spend whatever money they wanted to influence politics, overruling a Massachusetts statute that said otherwise. “If the restricted view of corporate speech taken by the Massachusetts court were accepted,” Justice Lewis A. Powell wrote, “government would have the power to deprive society of the views of corporations.”
Related
How the Media Launders Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Through Branded Content
“I don’t think people really appreciate how big of a deal that was in shifting the rules of speech in the public space,” environmental sociologist Robert Brulle said. “Now, suddenly, corporations could use their budgets — which are enormous, you know, much larger than individuals — to advocate their position in the public space. … It allowed for a systematic distortion of the public space that gives corporations basically a loudspeaker to amplify their voice above everybody else’s.”
The 2010 Citizens United ruling, of course, intensified that dynamic. Whereas Bellotti allowed corporations to publicly campaign for particular ballot initiatives or candidates, Citizens United allowed political speech of any sort without disclosure of who was paying, who was actually speaking. Oil companies have been working to broaden corporate free speech rights even more in recent years, as their arguments in climate litigation and before Congress show.
“They will try to defend their misinformation efforts as political speech covered by the First Amendment and not subject to false advertising laws,” said Brulle, who has co-authored briefs in some of these cases.
Robert Kerr, who’s researched Mobil’s role in the corporate free speech movement for years, said to side with the oil companies’ arguments in these cases, the Supreme Court would have to turn its back on about a century’s worth of legal precedent. “It’s really deeply established even by some of the members of the current Supreme Court that the First Amendment will never protect expression that is fraud,” he said. “The worry now is that with this court there seems to be a majority that wants to say yes to almost any question the corporate interests raise.”
It makes sense then, that the industry and its allies would be working hard to rebrand climate denialism as simply a difference of opinion, to put some distance between greenwashing and fraud, to collectively gasp about the “chilling effect” (a phrase that came up so often in minority witness testimony this week that it’s hard to believe someone somewhere wasn’t disseminating talking points) that tackling misinformation might have on free speech. The fact that those efforts are happening alongside coordinated attempts to criminalize protest is more of the same: corporations drowning out the public.
---
---
Climate-science deniers join forces against NC renewable-energy program
Climate-science deniers with ties to the fossil-fuel industry have joined forces in an assault on North Carolina's renewable energy program and particularly wind power, which has been making big gains in the U.S. in recent years.
Representatives of the American Legislative Exchange Council, American Tradition Institute and the John Locke Foundation held forums this week in the N.C. coastal communities of Wilmington and Morehead City titled "The Truth About Wind Power on the Coasts of North Carolina." Facing South attended the Wilmington presentation, which was heavy on emotion and shaky on the facts.
"The picking and choosing of information and the way it was presented was misleading and troublesome," said N.C. Sierra Club communications chief Dustin Chicurel-Bayard, who also attended the Wilmington event. The Sierra Club has taken a nuanced position on wind power in North Carolina; it has generally supported the industry's development but joined other environmental groups in fighting one commercial wind farm proposed for the northeastern corner of the state over concerns about wildlife impacts.
The speakers at this week's forums included Daren Bakst (right in photo), director of legal and regulatory studies for the John Locke Foundation, a free-market think tank that has been the leading voice of climate-science denial in North Carolina public-policy circles. JLF gets most of its funding from the family foundation of Art Pope -- a discount-retail mogul, conservative benefactor and one of four national directors of Americans for Prosperity, a tea party group founded and funded by the billionaire Koch brothers who own and operate the Koch Industries oil conglomerate.
Bakst also chairs the energy and natural resources subcommittee of the American Legislative Exchange Council, an unusually powerful corporate interest group that works to discredit state-level efforts to cut global-warming pollution. ALEC has received over $1.4 million from ExxonMobil since 1998 as well as extensive funding from Koch Industries and the Koch family foundations, according to a PR Watch investigation. Additionally, Bakst chairs the energy and natural resources subcommittee of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization that's dismissed the scientific consensus around global warming as "nothing more than an educated guess" while receiving over $165,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
:{:{Another presenter was David Schnare}: (middle in photo), a former government lawyer and scientist who directs the environmental law center at the American Tradition Institute, a conservative think tank that's part of a family of advocacy groups founded and funded by energy interests active in Western politics and that has been actively working to kill state renewable energy programs. ATI is currently involved in a controversial Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the University of Virginia that aims to obtain the emails of Michael Mann, a former professor at the school who's a leading scholar of climate change.
Paul Chesser, ATI's former executive director and now its director of communications and research, previously worked for the John Locke Foundation and led its climate-science denial efforts.}:
Also speaking was John Droz (left in photo), who recently became a fellow with ATI. While Droz identifies himself as a physicist and holds a master's in solid-state science from Syracuse University, he retired from industry in 1979 and has worked in real estate for the past 30 years, according to his resume. A New York native, he splits his time between homes in that state and in Morehead City. The forums were moderated by Roy Cordato, an economist who serves as JLF's vice president for research.
---
Daren Bakst, Esq., is Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies for the John Locke Foundation. In this position, he analyzes and presents on a wide range of issues, including property rights, constitutional law, regulatory reform, and energy and the environment.
His op-eds and quotes have appeared in outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times,USA Today, National Review Online, AOL News, American Enterprise Online, Chronicle of Higher Education, and many North Carolina newspapers, such as The Charlotte Observer.
Bakst serves on the Federalist Society's Administrative Law and Regulation Executive Committee and as a member of the Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council. He also is an adjunct professor at Barton College, teaching business law.
Prior to joining the Foundation, Bakst was Policy Counsel for theNational Legal Center for the Public Interest in Washington, DC., which recently merged into the American Enterprise Institute.
In 1998, Bakst founded the Council on Law in Higher Education, an independent nonprofit organization that analyzes the regulatory and legal burden on colleges and universities. He still serves as president of CLHE.
A licensed attorney, Bakst earned his J.D. from the University of Miami and his LL.M. in Law and Government from American University, Washington College of Law. Both his B.A. and M.B.A. are from The George Washington University.
---
off bs 10 22 no ALEC
daren Bakst is a senior research fellow in Regulatory Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. In this position, Bakst analyzes and writes about regulation, trade, environmental policy, food and agricultural policy, and private property rights, among other issues. He has done extensive work to address regulatory process and reform issues, combat cronyism, and remove government barriers that hinder economic freedom and innovation both domestically and globally.
Bakst frequently submits comments to regulatory agencies, testifies before Congress, and has appeared in or been quoted by a wide range of media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Times,CNN, Fox Business News, Al-Jazeera America, and U.S. News and World Report.
Before joining the Heritage Foundation, Bakst was a policy counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he focused on regulatory reform and environmental policy. He served as the executive to the association’s Government Oversight, Operations & Consumer Affairs committee, which was responsible for issues such as regulatory process reform.
He worked for seven years at the Raleigh, N.C.-based John Locke Foundation, one of the largest state-based, free-market think tanks. As director of legal and regulatory studies, his broad portfolio included regulatory reform, property rights, and environmental policy.
Bakst serves on the Federalist Society’s Administrative Law and Regulation Executive Committee, a member of the Washington International Trade Association, and a member of the Publications Peer Review Committee for theFood and Drug Law Institute. He also serves on the College Level Advisory Board for Constituting America, an organization that informs and educates about the importance of the U.S. Constitution.
Bakst, who hails from West Palm Beach, Fla., received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from George Washington University. A licensed attorney, he holds a law degree from University of Miami and a master of laws degree from American University.
---
duck 10 22
https://www.heritage.org › staff › daren-bakst
Daren Bakst | The Heritage Foundation
Daren Bakst is a senior research fellow for environmental policy and regulation at The Heritage Foundation. In this position, Bakst analyzes and writes about regulation, trade, environmental...
https://www.heartland.org › about-us › who-we-are › daren-bakst
Who We Are - Daren Bakst | Heartland Institute
Daren Bakst is the Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy at the Heritage Foundation and policy advisor for The Heartland Institute. In this position, Bakst studies and writes about agricultural and environmental policy and property rights, among other issues.
heritage.stage.heritage.org › staff › daren-bakst
Daren Bakst | The Heritage Foundation
Daren Bakst is a senior research fellow in Regulatory Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. In this position, Bakst analyzes and writes about regulation, trade, environmental policy, food and...
https://www.johnlocke.org › about › team › daren-bakst
Daren Bakst - John Locke Foundation
Daren Bakst is Senior Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy at the Heritage Foundation. In this position, Bakst studies and writes about agricultural and environmental policy and property rights, among other issues
Who Gets Hurt From High Gas and Diesel Prices? There's More Harm Than You Think.
The Daily Signal
The Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment Briefings: What You Need to Know About Gas Prices
The Daily Signal8d
Are these links helpful?YesNo
https://fee.org › people › daren-bakst
Daren Bakst | People - Foundation for Economic Education
Daren Bakst studies and writes about agriculture subsidies, property rights, environmental policy, food labeling and related issues as The Heritage Foundation's research fellow in agricultural policy. Read his research.
https://www.carolinajournal.com › people › daren-bakst
Daren Bakst - Carolina Journal
Daren Bakst, Esq., is Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies for the John Locke Foundation. In this position, he analyzes and presents on a wide range of issues, including property rights, constitutional law, regulatory reform, and energy and the environment.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com › author › daren-bakst
Daren Bakst | Washington Examiner
Jun 30, 2022Daren Bakst | April 26, 2022 12:32 PM. Reinstated Trump Water Rule Could Help Economy Grow. Daren Bakst & Rachael Wolpert | April 21, 2022 03:44 PM. Biden's ideological misuse of agriculture funding.
https://thefederalist.com › author › daren-bakst
Daren Bakst, Author at The Federalist
Daren Bakst is a Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Posts from Daren Bakst Page 1 of 1. Agriculture. The Farm Bill Fiasco. Daren Bakst January 29, 2014.
https://www.dailysignal.com › author › dbakst
Daren Bakst, author at DailySignal.com
Jul 29, 2022Daren Bakst analyzes and writes about regulatory policy, trade, environmental policy, and related issues as a senior research fellow in regulatory policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. View...
---
Daren Bakst | John Locke Foundation
Daren Bakst, Esq., is Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies for the John Locke Foundation. In this position, he analyzes and presents on a wide range of ...
www.johnlocke.org/research/bio/221
LabeledJohn Locke
Daren Bakst
Records 1 - 10 of 46 ... Daren Bakst, Esq., is Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies for the John Locke Foundation. In this position, he analyzes and presents on ...
www.carolinajournal.com/cjcolumnists/display_author.html?id=221
LabeledCarolina ...
JLF's Daren Bakst contrasts the NC government's eugenics program ...
Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation legal and regulatory policy analyst, explains why North Carolina's government-run forced-sterilization eugenics program ...
cjtv.carolinajournal.com/display_video.php?id=263&type=3
LabeledCJTV
JLF's Daren Bakst explains why North Carolina needs an eminent ...
Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation director of legal and regulatory studies, makes the case for a state constitutional amendment targetingeminent domain...
cjtv.carolinajournal.com/display_video.php?id=1042&type=5
LabeledCJTV
JLF's Daren Bakst discusses the history of North Carolina's forced ...
Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation director of legal and regulatory studies, discusses the history of North Carolina's forced sterilization program and the ...
cjtv.carolinajournal.com/display_video.php?id=1250&type=5
LabeledCJTV
Government Policies Drive Up Energy Costs - Carolina Journal Online
May 20, 2008 ... ... Carolina policymakers regularly express concern about the costs of energy, such as high gasoline prices,” said report co-author Daren Bakst, ...
www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id...
LabeledCarolina ...
JLF's Daren Bakst outlines the keys to real annexation reform
Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation legal and regulatory policy analyst, discusses the most important elements of annexation reform for North Carolina.
cjtv.carolinajournal.com/display_video.php?id=119&type=1
LabeledCJTV
---