180 Climate Deniers in Congress Received $82 Million in Dirty Money
Those of you who participated in Saturday's People's Climate March have 181 more reasons to protest.
New research shows that the 180 climate-denying members of Congress—plus President Trump, who famously denounced global warming as a hoax—have received more than $82 million from fossil fuel industries.
Researchers from the Center for American Progress Action Fund calculated that the Republican president, 142 representatives and 38 senators, who do not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity causes climate change, have received a total of $82,882,725 from coal, oil and gas industries—an increase from the $80,453,861 total in the previous report.
According to the new report, the top three recipients were Arizona Senator John McCain, who opposes the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that greenhouse gases are pollution; Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, who once said, "For everybody who thinks it's warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn't;" and Texas Senator John Cornyn, who actually acknowledges that humans have an impact on the environment but doesn't think it's the responsibility of the government to do anything about it.
For the report, the researchers defined a climate denier as any lawmaker who has:
• Questioned or denied the scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change;
• Answered climate questions with the "I'm not a scientist" dodge;
• Claimed the climate is always changing (as a way to dodge the implications of human-caused warming);
• Failed to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat; or
• Questioned the extent to which human beings contribute to global climate change.
Trump himself received $1,132,996 in dirty energy money.
"Last year's analysis found that 202,803,591 people were represented by a climate denier in Congress. Now, the entire population of almost 325 million Americans is represented by a climate denier with the election of Donald Trump as president," the report stated.
The president's first 100 days in office has been widely considered as disastrous, especially for the environment. From appointing cabinet members with noted ties to the fossil fuel industry to signing a slew of executive orders that roll back key environmental regulations.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›