Scotts Contracting St.Louis Design Build Sustainable Building Contractor-providing diversified quality service at a fair price. For all of your remodeling, repairs, and maintenance needs.
Note: I do not support Senator Roy Blunt. I provided his latest email to me because I think my Fellow Missourian's deserve to know how he stands on the Environmental Issues Facing our State and Nation. Besides his stand with the Big Oil and Big Coal Industry with his fellow Republicans.
I believe and the facts from his previous Lobbying / Lobbyist Activities not to mention the Earmarks he supported creates conflicts of Interest-Scotty"
Mr Blunts past behavior of
Ear Marks,
reckless and wasteful spending habits,
Lobbying Activities create Conflict of Interest,
He is Part of the Reason that "Washington is Broken"
Roy Blunt sponsored or co-sponsored 22 earmarks totaling $22,602,000 in fiscal year 2010, ranking 188th out of 435 representatives. See details. To learn more about earmarks, visit our Earmarks section.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Senator Roy Blunt wrote:
Dear Scotts Contracting:
Thank you for your email on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases.
The EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are outside of the authority given to it by Congress. It stretches the Clean Air Act to include emissions that the authors of the act never intended to regulate, and I will work to prevent the rule from being implemented and further harming our fragile economy.
I am co-sponsoring the Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act (S. 228). This bill restores Congress' role in the development and implementation of our nation's climate and energy policy by blocking backdoor attempts by regulatory agencies to regulate carbon emissions.
Environmental regulations, while important, should not place undue burdens on Missourians and all Americans, who depend on economically-priced energy on the job and at home. Protecting our environment and jumpstarting our economy are not mutually exclusive goals.
We can create better paying jobs at home by developing more American energy, relying on clean fuel alternatives, and promoting conservation. I continue to support more reliance on alternative fuels and greater investment in research for our energy future.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (www.blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.
Sincere regards,
Roy Blunt
United States Senator
______________________________
Use the Following Link to -Find Your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is SuggestedTellMyPolitician
If your Elected Leaders do not know where you stand on the issues they will not be able to vote for the issues that are affecting: You, Your Family, Work, Health, and Educational Needs.
Has anyone else noticed the influx of TV advertising for Companies who are now responding to the Green Initiative? Specifically, the Big Oil Companies.
Exxon Mobil
Shell
Koch Industries (from my research they do not promote clean energy)
BP
Chevron
ConnocoPhillips
Why would Big Oil companies join in the research and development of Renewable Energy Production?(That was the question I started asking myself) My Summary and Conclusion is at the end of Article. Scotty
I decided to nose around their websites and I've Posted information I found on the Big Oil Companies Web Sites. emphasis added by Scotty
EXXON MOBILE-Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and chief executive officer.- "The growing use of natural gas and other less-carbon intensive energy supplies, combined with greater energy efficiency in nations around the world, will help mitigate environmental impacts of increased energy demand. According to the Outlook, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions growth will be lower than the projected average rate of growth in energy demand.
“Our energy outlook clearly points to a growing demand for energy globally which reflects improving living standards for millions of people around the world. ExxonMobil will continue to invest in technology and innovation to develop new economic energy supplies to help meet this demand while looking for ways to reduce environmental impacts,” said Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and chief executive officer.
“The forecasts also show a shift toward natural gas as businesses and governments look for reliable, affordable and cleaner ways to meet energy needs,” Tillerson said. “Newly unlocked supplies of shale gas and other unconventional energy sources will be vital in meeting this demand.”
Rising electricity demand -- and the choice of fuels used to generate that electricity -- represent a key focus area, which will have a major impact on the global energy landscape over the next two decades. According to the outlook, global electricity demand will rise by more than 80 percent through 2030 from 2005 levels. In the non-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries alone demand will soar by more than 150 percent as economic and social development improve and more people gain access to electricity.
According to ExxonMobil’s Outlook, efforts to ensure reliable, affordable energy while also limiting greenhouse gas emissions will lead to polices in many countries that put a cost on carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, abundant supplies of natural gas will become increasingly competitive as an economic source of electric power as its use results in up to 60 percent fewer CO2 emissions than coal in generating electricity. Demand for natural gas for power generation is expected to rise by about 85 percent from 2005 to 2030 when natural gas will provide more than a quarter of the world’s electricity needs. Natural gas demand is rising in every region of the world but growth is strongest in non-OECD countries, particularly China where demand in 2030 will be approximately six times what it was in 2005." Article Continues
Government sponsorship of alternative energy. Many governments are providing tax advantages and other subsidies and mandates to make alternative energy sources more competitive against oil and gas.
Governments are also promoting research into new
technologies to reduce the cost and increase the scalability of alternative energy sources.
We are conducting our own research efforts into alternative energy, such as through sponsorship of the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University and research into hydrogen fuel cells and fuel-producing algae. Our future results may depend in part on the success of our research efforts and on our ability to adapt and apply the strengths of our current business model to providing the competitive energy products of the future. See "Management Effectiveness" below. Continues
Shell Article Link Shell is involved in 11 wind projects in Europe and North America with a total generating capacity of around 1,100 MW (Shell share 550 MW). Almost 900 MW of the total capacity come from some 722 wind turbines of eight wind projects in the USA that are part of a 50:50 joint venture. The biggest single one, the 264 MW Mount Storm wind project in West Virginia, USA, began operations in 2008.
We are also 50:50 partners in three joint-venture wind projects in Spain, Germany and the Netherlands. All in all, they involve a total of some 170 wind turbines with an aggregate capacity of some 200 MW Continues Here
Oil billionaires David and Charles Koch ...Koch Industries, the nation's second-largest private company with oil refineries and pipelines
LINK... each year, Koch Industries is likely responsible for about 300 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution every year. Flint Hills Resources, Koch's refining subsidiary, processes 300 million barrels of oil a year. This one company -- with its refining, pipeline, chemical, fertilizer, cattle, and forestry operations -- is involved in up to five percent of the entire United States 7-gigaton carbon footprint. Continues
BP "is contributing to the growing low-carbon energy sector by focusing on technologies that we believe we can build into substantial long-term businesses" From Page: BP Alternative energy
Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), a Chevron subsidiary, is the nation's largest installer of solar energy systems
ConocoPhillips
is committed to protecting the environment that we share. We implement high environmental standards in order to ensure that our actions today will not only provide the energy needed to drive economic growth and social well-being, but also secure a stable and healthy environment for tomorrow.
Health, Safety and Environmental Policy, Management System and Audits
A comprehensive Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) policy governs our efforts to improve our health and safety performance as well as our environmental stewardship. read more...
Climate Change
At ConocoPhillips we believe climate change is occurring and that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is a contributing factor. read more...
Energy Efficiency
Since the combustion of energy is a primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, we continually strive to make our operations more energy efficient. read more...
Ever-Cleaner Energy
ConocoPhillips believes that a secure energy future depends on utilizing a diverse mix of energy sources that are reliable, available and environmentally responsible. read more...
Clean Air
ConocoPhillips continues working to reduce air emissions from our operations read more...
Clean Water
ConocoPhillips recognizes that water management is an important worldwide issue and that it is critical to the sustainability of our business. read more...
Biodiversity
We recognize the importance of protecting and promoting biodiversity, particularly in sensitive areas. read more...
Material Efficiency
Being good stewards of the environment includes setting standards for waste management, minimization and decommissioning. read more...
Remediation
We give serious attention to our duty to restore properties impacted by our operations. read more...
Environmental Fines and Penalties
In 2008, environmental fines and penalties levied on ConocoPhillips totaled approximately $2.2 million. read more...
Times are changing with the demand for clean energy. The demands are coming in many forms: increase in population, carbon taxes, peer support, investor relations, Global Government Officials, customer requests, Clean Energy or Non-Polluting Energy Needs "World Wide", etc
When I read all that the Big Oil companies are getting involved with clean energy production. It confirms my thinking and believe that: "Renewable Energy from Clean Energy Sources" will become an integral part of all Home and Business Energy Needs.
More to Come
Future Article: How did the Investments by Big Oil Companies Increase the Cost of Renewable Energy
The Republican leadership has made its choice and it makes us sick. It took them exactly one day in office to show their true colors and declare an all-out war on the Clean Air Act and the EPA.1
House Republicans like Rep. Issa (R-CA), Upton (R-MI), and Carter (R-TX) are trying to dismantle the public health protections we've fought so hard for, all for one simple reason - to support oil and coal polluters' bottom line.
The current EPA rule for cement plants Republicans are working to eviscerate will cause up to 2,500 premature deaths a year, 13,000 days of work missed due to pollution related health problems, and cost our economy at least $6.7 billion.2
It's a stark choice between our health and corporate greed. Republican leaders have made their choice – where will your legislators stand?
Let's be clear. Rolling back the cement rule is just the first of many corporate supported efforts to halt progress in protecting our health and environment. It's time to draw a line in the sand. Our elected officials can stand with us and fight for our health and communities or stand with the polluters, their bank accounts, and their pro-asthma, pro-heart attack, pro-sickness agenda. Send a message to your members of Congress to make sure they stand with us and not with corporate polluters.
Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment.
Sarah Hodgdon
Sierra Club, Conservation Director
P.S. Please forward this message and help spread the word to your friends and family!
Global Warming and Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away- Step away from the Monetary Feed Trough filled by Big Oil and Big Coal
Suggestions for the Republicans in Office:
Get with the Program and push yourself away Monetary Feed Trough; supported by the Big Oil and Big Coal Campaign Donations, it is clouding your Judgment on Global Warming / Climate Change.
The Fog in your Head is being caused by the CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuels
The Donations have Clearly Altered Your Perceptions that: Fossil Fuels are not Destroying our Planet.
See for Your Self and determine which Politician in your States Elected Officials- whose side of the Bread gets Buttered by the Big Oil and Big Coal Companies at: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress(Missouri's Roy Blunt made the Top 5. (That's sure something to be proud of-NOT!))
It obvious that the Republican Party is not interested in Creating Jobs-yet so many Americans are out of Work-WTF? Is not a portion of your Pay Check created by the Taxes levied against our Pay Checks? Maybe Americans should claim Exempt on their W4's?
Food For Thought: What if the Political Leaders Pay Checks were determined by the Performance of their Actions or Lack of Actions in the Congress and Senate. I bet many would be singing a different tune.
Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship will be a factor in the Next Election
Republicans supposedly support Business Growth- How much will a Business Grow if the Un-Employed can't buy any products?
I encourage everyone to contact your Leaders in the House and Senate, use the following web link to find your Elected Officials Contact Information and Let them know your Thoughts. They are supposed to Listen to their Constituents.
Science the GOP can't wish away
By Sherwood Boehlert
Friday, November 19, 2010
Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn't help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.
Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.
I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.
In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."
Our nation's most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn't make it any clearer or more conclusive.
When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts - always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists - careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect - report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.
While many in politics - and not just of my party - refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation's most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by "tree huggers" sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying "in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy."
There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem's existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.
The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry - the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity - are exploited for the sake of political expediency.My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it's also bad politics.
What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn't deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.
The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation does not change that fact.
The writer, a Republican, represented New York's 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project on Climate Science.
When I read something like this a few things jump out at me and I really wonder what and who my Neighbors to the East, in Illinois voted for? With Leaders such as this Governing our Nation its painfully obvious why we are in the Mess we are in. The Old Adage of the Blind leading the Blind. I expect nothing less from the Republican Party who accepts the Largest Contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industry.
John Shimkus (Republican-Illinois), who has opposed cap and trade legislation because he believes God will not allow the earth to be destroyed by global warming, is running to become the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman.
"The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood."
"largest assualt on democracy and freedom in this country that I've ever experienced."
His position on carbon emissions includes the belief that reducing carbon dioxide will be detrimental for plant life.
While researching who his biggest Campaign Supporters are at www.FollowTheOilMoney.org. It shows that he has accepted $545,831 From the Fossil Fuel Companies. [ 60% from Coal and 40% from Oil ] With a contributions such as these I can see how anyone could be swayed to Vote for the Damaging Fossil Fuels that hinder USA and keep us in the Pockets of the Oil Rich Nations.
I truly expect nothing less; but, hope for change, from our current Republican Leaders.
U.S. House Representative John Shimkus (Republican-Illinois), who has opposed cap and trade legislation because he believes God will not allow the earth to be destroyed by global warming, is running to become the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman.
In 2009, at a congressional hearing on cap and trade legislation, Rep. Shimkus said, "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood." This week in an interview withPolitico, Shimkus reaffirmed these views: when asked about climate change he stated once again that God will not allow the world to be washed away in a flood.
Shimkus has also called an energy bill incorporating cap and trade measures for carbon emissions as the "largest assualt on democracy and freedom in this country that I've ever experienced." His position on carbon emissions includes the belief that reducing carbon dioxide will be detrimental for plant life.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee oversees legislation related to issues including the supply and delivery of energy, public health, and air quality and environmental health. Three other Republicans -- Rep. Joe Barton (Texas), Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan), and Rep. Cliff Stearns (Florida) -- are seeking the chairmanship of this committee. Upton is considered the favourite to win the position.
Information Provided by:Scotty,Scott's Contracting GREEN BUILDER, St Louis "Renewable Energy" Missouri>http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com; contact scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com for additional information or to Schedule a "Free Green Site Evaluation"
Peak oil: Not just for conspiracy theorists anymore
I understand why people don't listen to wild-eyed conspiracy theorists about the coming calamity of peak oil. Instead, they go to recognized experts like Daniel Yergin (author of The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power), who tells them that everything is OK and the black gold will keep pumping for many decades to come.
But it ain't necessarily so. And would you believe Lloyd's of London? Lloyd's has joined with the well-respected Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House, to say that Britain (and presumably the rest of the world) needs to be ready for peak oil and erratic energy supplies.
"Companies which are able to take advantage of this new energy reality will increase both their resilience and their competitiveness," according to the report, Sustainable Energy Security: Strategic Risks and Opportunities for Business. The report, says Lloyd's chief executive officer, Dr. Richard Ward, "should cause all risk managers to pause." I guess so!
According to the report:
Businesses that prepare for the new scarcity will prosper, and failure to act could be catastrophic.
Access to relatively cheap, combustible, carbon-based energy is an outmoded expectation, caused by surging energy consumption in the Third World, a range of factors affecting conventional fuel production, and "international recognition that continuing to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will cause climate chaos."
The importance of China and emerging Asian economies in energy markets will grow. Chinese oil consumption is rising rapidly, as is Chinese coal production. "Third, their energy security policies are driving investment in clean energy technologies on an unprecedented scale."
We are heading towards a global oil supply crunch and price spike on international markets. Said spike would prompt "drastic national measures to cut oil dependency."
Climate change will make energy infrastructure increasingly vulnerable. Global warming itself imperils oil production and delivery due to "severe weather events." For investors, this means betting on instability makes sense.
Businesses have to address energy risks by reducing oil consumption. In addition to natural scarcity, companies will face regulation such as carbon pricing and cap and trade.
Investment in renewable energy and "intelligent infrastructure" presents "huge opportunities for new business partnerships." The smart grid is the wave of the future, but in clean energy too there will be scarcities and higher costs. Plus vulnerabilities in a system increasingly dependent on IT.
In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.
Koch brothers join Big Oil and Big Coal for Political Contributions...Say no to Campaign Contributions...Washington is Corrupt with Campaign Contributions... Re-Elect No-One!!!
Charles Koch and David Koch -- aka the KochtopusA company controlled by the billionaire Koch brothers, who have bankrolled numerous right-wing causes, has donated $1 million to the campaign to pass Proposition 23, the California ballot initiative that would suspend the state's global-warming law.
The contribution was made Thursday and came from Flint Hills Resources, a Kansas petrochemical company that is a subsidiary of Koch Industries. The Koch brothers were the subject of a recent profile in The New Yorker.
The Koch donation came a day after Tesoro, a Texas oil company that has been bankrolling the pro-Prop 23 campaign, put $1 million into the campaign coffers.
According to the No campaign, 97 percent of the $8.2 million raised by the Yes forces has been given by oil-related interests and 89 percent of that money has come from out of state. Three companies, Koch Industries, Tesoro, and Valero -- another Texas-based oil company -- have provided 80 percent of those funds.
"There are three companies from out of state that have a very specific economic interest in rolling back our clean energy economy and jobs," Thomas Steyer, a San Francisco hedge-fund manger who is co-chair of the No on 23 campaign, said during a conference call Friday.
"I am a businessman," he added. "I believe in the free enterprise system. I believe in profit. But companies have to accept the rules that are placed on them."
Steyer, founder of Farallon Capital Management, has pledged $5 million of his own money to the No campaign.
As the traditional Labor Day kickoff to the fall campaign season approaches, the No campaign has also been collecting some large donations, albeit from individuals rather than corporations.
A Southern California businesswoman, Claire Perry, contributed $250,000 on Monday. Last Friday, Julie Packard, a daughter of Hewlett-Packard founder David Packard, gave $101,895.
"If the Yes on 23 folks win, we're going to change the framework for investment here," said Steyer. "We're going to change our ability to create new industries. Those industries are going to go elsewhere, probably not in the United States. Probably specifically our biggest competition in this is China."
151973
Todd Woody is a veteran environmental journalist based in California, where he writes his Green Wombat blog and contributes to The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and other publications. Todd formerly was a senior editor at Fortune magazine, an assistant managing editor at Business 2.0 magazine and the business editor of the San Jose Mercury News. He’s one of the few people on the planet who have held the rare northern hairy-nosed wombat in the wild.
Another Letter to: Rep. Russ Carnahan, Sen. Kit Bond, Sen. McCaskill,
Dear Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Bond, and Ms. McCaskill-
I encourage 'Leading by Example'. When I read that my Elected Leaders have a combined Political Contributions of $455,759.00-From the Oil and Coal Industry. I feel my Government Representatives are being influenced by the Oil and Coal Corporations.
I encourage you to vote for meaningful legislation that will move our Great State and assist in the Nation's move towards Energy Independence. If more of our Electricity was supplied by Renewable Energy- We would require less Coal and Oil.
Its obvious to even the Lay-Person that Global Warming is REAL with Oil and Coal being the biggest culprits. In staying with our States Theme: 'Show Me'. I believe we have the perfect opportunity to 'Show' the Union how we are directing our Great State towards Energy Independence.
I am just one small voice and share my views with my combined 4,000 average monthly readers via my web sites. When it comes time for RE-Election in the Future. Renewable Energy Production and Weatherization will be 'Hot-Bed' Issues. I would like to report to my Readers that Our Current Leaders have voted for Renewable Energy Production and Weatherization. Rather than reporting how our Current Leaders are voting for Big Oil and Big Coal.
I would also like to offer Guest Post Opportunities for you to share your Views on Renewable Energy Production and Weatherization.
Thank you for your time. My best to you and yours.
I've been secretly hoping our chosen leaders were directing our Nations Energy Policy in the right direction. When I read articles such as this one I get T-d off.
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!! If you need help finding your legislators I'll be glad to assist. email me
Why We Advocate July 29, 2010
An anecdote, to start with…
A colleague, on a recent visit to Washington DC, found himself in conversation with a recently retired, well-known and -respected U.S. senator. He took the opportunity to ask him what it would take for a congressman to vote for an issue that he knew in his heart was right for the country and the planet, irrespective of partisan attachments and personal considerations. The retired senator (whom, in order not to betray a trust, we will not name, but who is known as a strong supporter of energy independence) replied that only when the congressman no longer needed an influx of money, e.g., after he had decided not to run for office again, might this happen. Until then he would alwaysvote in accordance with his source of funding, working hard to produce whatever arguments were needed to justify his vote.
Lamentably, the above is probably not particularly surprising to readers. The pernicious influence of 'big money' in politics (one would say 'campaigns' except that campaigns seem to be a permanent condition of politics today) is well known, but it's sobering to hear a veteran legislator sympathetic to renewable energy confirm, in effect, that until our industry can throw money at his former colleagues with as much abandon as does the fossil fuel industry, then that latter industry can absolutely count on congressional votes in its favor. What works for the country, what is needed for the health of the planet, what can revitalize American jobs and create new industries here will always lose out to the demands of the campaign chest.
Unless…
Well, there's always an 'unless', isn't there? And in this case, it came from the retired senator, who asserted that the only exception to the above-described dynamic would occur if the congressman were convinced that enough constituents would predicate their vote for or against him on a single issue, to negate the effects of massive campaign contributions.
And that's why we advocate. We beat the drum for solar energy and all the reasons why it makes sense - energy independence, climate regulation, clean energy, sustainability and more - because we want our elected legislators to hear something other than the sound of money falling into their war chests. And we work for the day when those legislators turn to their deep-pocket corporate contributors and say (apologetically) that they would like to oblige them on this upcoming vote, but there are so many voters in their districts demanding action on clean energy that, for once, they have to do what the people want.
You can also check contributions during political campaigns. Barack Obama received $898, 251 from oil companies during his winning 2008 campaign, most of that coming from ExxonMobil ($113646). BP gave President Obama $39405.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center. ..
Politics and Climate Change July News. Hot enough for you? It's not hot enough for our Senators, clearly. Record-breaking temperatures around the country and around the globe didn't cause any groundswell of support for climate ...
METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs, soft money donors, and individuals giving $200 or more. (Only those groups giving $5,000 or more are listed here. Soft money applies only to cycles 1992-2002.) In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. All donations took place during the 2009-2010 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, June 13, 2010.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
Top 20 Members
Candidate
Amount
McCain, John (R-AZ)
$2,677,524
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)
$2,137,225
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
$1,682,814
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
$1,652,150
Barton, Joe (R-TX)
$1,458,530
Inhofe, James M (R-OK)
$1,231,523
Pearce, Steve (R-NM)
$998,178
Young, Don (R-AK)
$981,263
Obama, Barack (D)
$973,551
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
$862,561
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
$841,388
Vitter, David (R-LA)
$791,335
Dole, Bob (R)
$781,705
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)
$758,744
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM)
$747,897
DeLay, Tom (R-TX)
$690,140
Conaway, Mike (R-TX)
$652,718
Sessions, Pete (R-TX)
$645,864
Tiahrt, Todd (R-KS)
$628,073
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
$614,17
Party Split:
Dems:
Repubs:
Others:
$3,421,498
$7,053,733
$16,250
All Candidates:
$10,491,481
Incumbents Only:
$7,951,271
House
# of Members
Average Contribution
Total Contributions
Democrats
186
$9,443
$1,756,453
Republicans
164
$20,691
$3,393,312
Independents
0
$0
$0
TOTAL
350
$14,714
$5,149,765
The US House of Representatives has 435 members and 5 non-voting delegates.
Totals may exceed 440 due to mid-term replacements.
Senate
# of Members
Average Contribution
Total Contributions
Democrats
48
$26,939
$1,293,054
Republicans
34
$44,249
$1,504,452
Independents
2
$625
$1,250
TOTAL
84
$33,319
$2,798,756
The US Senate has 100 members.
Totals may exceed 100 due to mid-term replacements.
The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations took place during the 2009-2010 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, June 13, 2010.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
†These numbers show how the industry ranks in total campaign giving as compared to more than 80 other industries. Rankings are shown only for industries (such as the Automotive industry) -- not for widely encompassing "sectors" (such as Transportation) or more detailed "categories" (like car dealers).
*These figures do not include donations of "Levin" funds to state and local party committees. Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.
Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, June 13, 2010.
NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
TellMyPolitician 
, 
, 
, 
Dems
Repubs
Indivs
PACs
Soft $
$3,421,498
$7,053,733
$16,250
$10,491,481
