The Manhattan Institute was founded in 1977 by Anthony Fisher and William J. Casey. Originally called the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, it was renamed in 1981 as the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI). The mission of MI is to “develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility. MI is also part of the State Policy Network, an organization founded by Joseph Bast, that consists of various conservative and right-leaning think tanks.
On Climate Change
The official stance of the Manhattan Institute (MI) on climate change is that while the institute and its senior fellows do accept climate science, they do not believe that suggested solutions are, or will be effective. They focus solely on the economic impact of climate change policies, and not the environmental impact. Despite disagreeing with proposed climate change solutions, they do not provide any policy suggestions of their own.
The Manhattan Institute believes that people, specifically politicians, exaggerate the problem of climate change. According to the Institute, politicians frame climate change in a way that makes it seem much worse than it actually is, and that there are other problems that deserve our attention.. Since climate change isn’t definite, according to the Institute, policy proposals should focus on issues that pose definite problems now, like the overuse of antibiotics.
In a virtual hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on February 3, 2021, Mark Mills, a Senior Fellow at the Institute, said that while wind and solar energy are “a good thing,” it is “equally indisputable that all energy machines are, necessarily, built and operated using materials that must first be extracted from the earth” that will result “in a ten-fold increase in the quantity of materials and processed per unit of energy delivered.” He also warned the Committee about the security risks of a growing dependence on critical minerals.
In a second virtual hearing held by the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held on February 9, 2021, Mills said that “80% of the nation’s energy comes from hydrocarbons…Meanwhile wind and solar supply less than 4% of U.S. energy, and electric cars under 0.5% of road-miles. Given the scale of our economy, changing the status quo presents some daunting economic, environmental and geopolitical challenges.” He went on to say that the cost of “complete grid restructuring would be far greater than popularly acknowledged.” In an effort to describe the economic implications of green energy, Mills discussed the cost of different minerals, the cost of restructuring the grid, and security concerns regarding dependency on critical minerals.
On February 2, 2021, Mills also testified before the Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota. North Dakota has one of the highest per capita consumption rates of energy, and it also has one of the lowest prices paid for electricity in the U.S. Additionally, North Dakota ranks only after Texas for crude oil production and crude oil preserves. It contains the world’s largest known deposit of lignite. Despite this, 27% of North Dakota’s energy comes from wind energy. In his testimony, Mills tried to convince the Legislative Assembly that it would be far too expensive to shift to wind power, saying that it would cost almost $200 to store a battery that contained the same amount of energy as a $1 barrel of oil. He also said that so far the consequences of solar power have been mitigated by available conventional energy, but conventional energy will disappear as more states pursue wind energy. He does not describe what are the consequences of using more wind energy.
In an article published on their website, the Manhattan Institute said that there are “unintended consequences of a premature rush to replace hydrocarbons with renewable energy.” Some of these consequences, according to the Manhattan Institute, include an increase in the price of imports, an increase in the amount of energy minerals imported, most of which will apparently be “mined and refined” overseas, and an increased imbalance in trade.
Outreach
The Manhattan Institute hosts several types of events pertaining to climate change and energy policy. Early this year, the Institute held a “Fireside Chat” with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline cutoff. They discussed the economic impacts of the Keystone XL cutoff for both Canada and the U.S.
In 2019, the Institute hosted a roundtable lunch titled “Climate Change and ‘The New Anti-Federalism’: How Environmentalists Are Shifting Policy Debated From Legislatures To Courtrooms and Boardrooms.” Paul Atkins, former SEC Commissioner, James R. Copland, a Senior Fellow at the Institute, and Luther Strange, a former Senator (R-AL) all spoke at the roundtable.
The Manhattan Institute also has a Young Leaders Circle, a “distinctive forum” for “New York’s young professionals…to discuss policy ideas, cultural issues, and public affairs.” In the past, their monthly meetings have included speakers such as Oren Cass, a previous Senior Fellow at MI. During one meeting in 2018, they discussed how to have “rational, thoughtful climate change conversations.”
Senior Fellows at the Institute also host both in-house lectures and lectures at universities and other larger forums. In 2018, Cass held a lecture called “Overheated: How Flaws Analysis Overestimate the Costs of Climate Change,” in which he said that the future consequences of climate change are “not nearly so grim” as people are predicting it will be, saying that they are failing “to account for adaptation.” Also in 2018, Senior Fellows from the Manhattan Institute joined Vanderbilt University professors on a panel called “Critical Conversations: A Carbon Tax.”
A previous Senior Fellow, Robert Bryce, was a popular op-ed contributor to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, where he discussed the pitfalls of clean energy.
Funding
The Manhattan Institute is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. The Institute asks its supporters to make a tax-deductible donation to support its “uniquely American approach to social engagement.”
In 2015, the Manhattan Institute received $300,000 from the Mercer Foundation.
In 2018, 30% of ExxonMobil’s donations were split between the Manhattan Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. The Institute’s share of the contribution was $75,000. Since 1998, the Institute has received more than $1.3 million from ExxonMobil.
The Manhattan Institute also received $3,182,717 from Koch Foundations from 1997-2017.
See Also:
Jonathan Lesser
State Policy Network
Climate of Denial