The "stein" rhymes with "mine," not "mean."

No.

No.

I will debate anyone on energy/climate provided that at least 1 of 2 conditions are met:

1. A forum will host it with an expected 100,000 views or more.

2. A forum will pay my speaking fee.

The goal is to give anyone legitimate an opportunity without wasting my time.

Throughout my career working on energy (and other issues) I have pursued ways of getting paid for my work that maximized my editorial independence and minimized any outside influence.

My work before I founded Center for Industrial Progress

From 2007-2011, when I worked on energy at The Ayn Rand Institute, no one connected to fundraising ever attempted to influence my work. The Institute is famous or, in certain circles notorious, for focusing on the content its leadership thinks is important even when that costs them significant potential contributions

Since I started Center for Industrial Progress in 2011, I have been paid for my work through a combination of selling products and services (books and speaking) and accepting financial contributions from various people and organizations. In both cases I have prioritized my independence above all.

Selling products and services

I have sold books, speaking engagements on various topics, and consulting services—largely help on creating messages. In all cases I have been clear with clients that they have no say in what I say to the general public or to government.

I have repeatedly turned down offers to receive any kind of payment in exchange for commenting in a certain way on a certain issue. This includes paid expert testimony, which I do not do. When I testify anywhere it is me volunteering.

Accepting contributions

While for most of my company’s existence I have focused on selling products and services—in part because I think many forms of fundraising are inefficient—in recent years I have funded certain projects with contributions.

The #1 example is my Energy Talking Points project.

To preserve my independence I:

Take a wide variety of contributions of equal size, with no one person or organization being responsible for more than 10% of my revenue.

Make explicit to contributors that they have no control over what I talk about or what I say about it.

A clarification on "The Koch Brothers"

The number one form of attack related to my finances is that I am "funded by the Koch Brothers."

For example, climate scientist and activist Michael Mann called me "the Koch Brothers’ attack dog" for a piece I wrote in Forbes. I asked Mann to substantiate this totally false charge, and his response was to block me on Twitter.

For the reasons I have explained above, if "the Koch Brothers" were financially supporting my projects, they would 1) be less than 10% of contributions, and 2) would have no control over the content of those projects. And I greatly admire the Koch Brothers—Charles Koch as well as David Koch, who is sadly deceased—so I would be proud to have them as donors.

But the fact is that Koch or its organizations have never donated to any of my funded projects. (I will not disclose whether they have been a consulting client, because I keep all such clients confidential, but in either case it would be irrelevant because my consulting clients pay me to tell them what to say, not vice-versa.)

The bizarre origin of the claim that my work is driven by "The Koch Brothers" is that the Charles Koch Foundation supposedly gave my former employer, the Ayn Rand Institute $50,000-$100,000 total over a period of many years. Given that ARI’s budget was on the order of $10 million a year when I worked there, the idea that this paltry sum moved them, and then me, to take a certain positions on fossil fuels should be absurd on its face.

It is then even more absurd to claim that this paltry contribution to my employer of over a decade ago still drives my work!

When you see anyone claiming that I am "funded by the Koch Brothers," you know you are dealing with someone is either maliciously deceiving you or irresponsibly ignorant.

The bottom line: I work incredibly hard to prevent any corrupting influences on my work, and my opinions are honestly held.

I will debate anyone with a significantly different views on energy/climate provided that 1 of 2 conditions are met:

1. A forum will host it with an expected 250,000 views or more.

OR

2. A forum will pay my speaking fee.

This gives any competent person the opportunity to debate me if they can earn a significant enough audience and/or forum, while protecting me from having my time wasted by the endless number of unknown people who demand multi-hour debates with me.

Note: Many people have responded to my policy by claiming that I only debate if paid. This is not true; all anyone has to do is meet condition 1.

Unfortunately, very few prominent people are willing to debate me in a major forum.