Bruce Everett

Credentials

MA, MALD (1980) Tufts University, Fletcher School, International Relations.¹
PhD (1980) Tufts University, Fletcher School, International Relations.²
AB (1969) Princeton University, Politics.³

Background

Bruce McKenzie Everett is an energy analyst, adjunct professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and Adjunct Associate Professor of International Business at Tufts University. He has over three decades of experience in the energy industry as a government official, oil industry executive, professor, and energy policy commentator.⁴

According to his biography at Georgetown University, Bruce M. Everett retired from a career in the oil industry in June, 2002. His career with Exxon Corporation started in 1980 where he worked in their Corporate Planning Department, and over the next 22 years he held a variety of jobs at both Exxon and Exxonmobil including:⁵

Manager of Energy and Petroleum Economics in Esso Europe,
Manager of Planning and Analysis at Exxon Coal & Minerals Company,
Operations Manager at the Carter Mining Company (Wyoming coal),
Executive Director of Exxon Energy in Hong Kong,
Regional Natural Gas Manager for the Middle East, Africa and Latin America at Exxon Company,
and International and Deputy Manager of Public Affairs, ExxonMobil Downstream Companies.

Everett is a member of the “Advisory Committee” of the CO2 Coalition, a group founded in 2015 with the goal of “educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide and fossil fuels to our lives and the economy.” He has previously described CO2 as “plant food,” and expressed the view that reducing emissions is unnecessary.⁶

Stance on Climate Change

The following quotes are taken from a May, 2015 op-ed that Bruce Everett wrote for the Cod Times titled “Beyond the climate-change hype”:⁷

“Despite constant predictions of catastrophic global warming, the Earth’s temperature has remained flat for the past 15 years.

“A better term for carbon dioxide is ‘plant food.’”

“[T]he computer models that generate apocalyptic warming scenarios still can’t make any correct predictions.”

“[A]bout 90 percent of the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth livable comes from water vapor, mainly in the form of clouds. Although carbon dioxide does have a warming impact, observations suggest that doubling CO2 concentrations would raise temperatures only 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit.”

“In the face of budget limitations and real environmental priorities such as the continued cleanup of our air and water, wilderness preservation and the reduction of toxic chemicals, how many of our hard-earned dollars are we willing to give politicians for purely symbolic reductions in a benign gas?”

Key Quotes

December 2015

“Some argue that burning oil, which releases carbon, contributes to climate change. Whether or not this is true, a 2-million-barrels-per-day reduction in American oil use would cut global carbon emissions by only 1 percent. […] People have a right to choose the car that is best for them. Tighter government efficiency standards will do more harm than good.”⁸

October 2015

Speaking with the Cape Cod Times, Bruce Everett outlines his position as an outspoken climate change skeptic.⁹

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant or poison; it’s plant food,” Everett said. “We don’t understand climate nearly enough to say, ‘If we keep burning fossil fuels, it will be disastrous.’ That’s just an opinion.”¹⁰

Everett’s suggestion is to leave climate change policy to the market:

“Even if we didn’t change policy, natural gas is so inexpensive, it’s driving coal out of the market,” he said. “This is market-driven. As long as we continue to build pipelines to move gas, this will happen anyway.”¹¹

Key Deeds

February 4, 2018

In January 2018, more than 200 scientists endorsed an open letter calling on the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) to remove climate change denier Rebekah Mercer from its board and to “end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation.” The New York Times reported that those among the AMNH letter calling for Mercer to step down were Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.¹²

Everett was among a group of climate change deniers who responded with their own open letter, calling for the AMNH “not to cave in to this pressure.” The letter was signed by numerous individuals with ties to groups funded by the Mercer Family Foundation such as Will Happer of the CO2 CoalitionRichard Lindzen, a fellow at the Cato InstituteCraig Idso, the chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. There are a number of signatories affiliated with the Heartland Institute, which has received over $5.78 million from the Mercer Family Foundation since 2008.¹³

The letter reads:¹⁴

“The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.

“Make no mistake, the agitators are not defending science from quackery — quite the contrary!”

February 23, 2017

Bruce Everett was a signatory of a petition (PDF) organized by Richard Lindzen of the Cato Institute urging President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the United Nations international convention on climate change (UNFCCC).¹⁵

“In just a few weeks, more than 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world have signed the petition below,” Lindzen wrote in the letter.¹⁶

Media outlets including Fox News, The Hill, and the Daily Caller reported on the list, describing signatories as “eminent scientists” and “qualified individuals.¹⁷ ¹⁸ ¹⁹

DeSmog investigated the list, and found that only a small handful of the signatories could be considered “even remotely ‘qualified’ or ‘eminent’ — but not in the field of climate science.” The list included individuals “interested in climate,” and one signatory who only identified as an “emailer who wished to sign the petition” while some signers provided no affiliation or address whatsoever.²⁰

July 2015

Bruce Everett ran an Op-Ed in Politico supporting the lift of the oil export ban titled “The problem with Elizabeth Warren’s oil arguments.”²¹

Everett criticizes an open letter by 13 of President Obama’s senators who had sent a letter strongly urging the President to keep the oil ban in place. According to Everett, “The senators offer six reasons for keeping the crude export ban in place, all of them wrong.”²²

May 30, 2015

Bruce Everett wrote a May, 2015 op-ed that Bruce Everett wrote for the Cod Times titled “Beyond the climate-change hype” where he claims that we need to “rethink the climate issue.”²³

Everett makes the following arguments:

“Climate activists, including President Obama, now erroneously call carbon dioxide (CO2) a “pollutant,” akin to poisons like lead and mercury. […] Greenhouses routinely set carbon dioxide levels at 1,000-1,500 ppm to boost photosynthesis and grow crops faster. A better term for carbon dioxide is ‘plant food.’ ” (See refutation by SkepticalScience here and here)
“Recent changes in temperature, CO2 concentration and sea level are very small on a geological time scale.” (See refutation by SkepticalScience)
“Computer models that generate apocalyptic warming scenarios still can’t make any correct predictions.” (See refutation by SkepticalScience)
“90 percent of the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth livable comes from water vapor, mainly in the form of clouds. Although carbon dioxide does have a warming impact, observations suggest that doubling CO2 concentrations would raise temperatures only 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit.” (See refutation by SkepticalScience)
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects global carbon dioxide emissions of about 370 billion metric tons between now and 2025. President Obama’s climate program (characterized as “bold” and “ambitious” by some media outlets) would reduce those emissions by less than 2 percent. […] our politicians try to placate climate activists with expensive subsidies, burdensome regulations and vague promises — an “all pain, no gain” policy.” (See refutations by SkepticalScience here and here)

Affiliations

Publications

According to a search of Google Scholar, Bruce Everett does not appear to have published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. According to his CV, Everett’s research Interests include Energy and Petroleum Economics, Energy Policy, Environmental Policy, Middle-East Economics and Politics, and Technology development.²⁶

Everett has authored a range of Op-Eds criticizing wind energy, oil taxes, and fuel taxes such as the following:

“High-Skilled, High-Tech Welfare,” Cape Cod Times, September 6, 2012
“Wind turbines a poor investment,” Cape Cod Times, September 13, 2010
“Big oil tax would hurt the middle class,” Cape Cod Times, July 30, 2008
“Should we raise fuel-efficiency standards,” New York Times Upfront, January 24, 2005
“Why gasoline taxes are a bad idea,” Fletcher News, Fall 2004
“Over a Barrel,” Baltimore Sun, July 29, 2004
“Iraq doesn’t have to become a cliché of oil-wealth excess,” Christian Science Monitor, September 16, 2003