Republicans - Are they Blind to Climate Change?

I don't agree with everything the Sierra Club Promotes
but I do approve of their Global Warming
ie: Climate Change Stance. 

		Scotty,  Stand Up to Republican's New Attacks on the EPA and our Health - Send a Message! 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 Contact your members of Congress today and tell them that these Republican attacks on the EPA and our health make us sick. 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? Send your members of Congress a letter and make sure they are as outraged about this power-grab for corporate polluters as we are. 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! [1] "E.P.A. Faces First Volley from the House," New York Times: January 6, 2011. [2] "Portland Cement: Factsheet," Earthjustice Factsheet: 2010.

Sierra Club
85 Second St.
San Francisco, CA 94105

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

All Republicans in Office Take Heed-Science the GOP can't wish away

 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:

1. 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.
• If you think God will save us like Republican John Shimkus-Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming-- I'd like to introduce you too Reality- "The World is Warming at an Alarming Rate" see the Following Web Links
  
• global warming (3)
• Global Warming Basics for Research (1)
• Global Warming Research (1)
2. 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!))
   
3. If you think the USA does not want Clean Energy for Homes and Business- Take note of the Nov 2, 2010 Election and the Clean Green Energy-http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29
4. 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?
   
5. 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.
   
6. Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship  will be a factor in the Next Election
7. 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.


National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country's National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world's climate scientists.

.

• 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.


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http:scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Additional Reading:
Decision Points, Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate

Senate climate bill death

Anatomy of a Senate climate bill death

President Barack Obama took office with four major domestic agenda items: a plan to prevent the recession from growing worse and launch recovery; health care reform; financial reform to avoid future meltdowns; and clean energy and global warming legislation to create jobs, reduce oil use, and cut pollution. The president succeeded with the first three items. But clean energy legislation died in the Senate after passing the House.

The October 6, 2010 New Yorker has a "behind the curtain" dissection of the rise and fall of climate legislation in the Senate. It provides an interesting insider view of the always messy legislative process.

Reporter Ryan Lizza details some senators' admirable willingness to stretch beyond their comfort zones on some energy issues to cement an agreement that would establish declining limits on carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants while allowing more offshore oil drilling and subsidies for nuclear power. He also notes the critical miscommunications and different approaches by senators and the Obama administration that reduced prospects for success.

Lizza gives short shrift, however, to the real reasons Senate passage of climate legislation was impossible in 2010: the deep recession, unified and uncompromising opposition in the Senate, and big spending by oil, coal, and other energy interests. Let's take a close look at these factors.

The Great Recession took its toll

Many economists described this latest recession as the worst since the Great Depression in the 1930s. Economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi note in the July 2010 report "How the Great Recession was Brought to an End:"

Eighteen months ago, the global financial system was on the brink of collapse and the U.S. was suffering its worst economic downturn since the 1930s. Real GDP was falling at about a 6% annual rate, and monthly job losses averaged close to 750,000. Today, the financial system is operating much more normally, real GDP is advancing at a nearly 3% pace, and job growth has resumed, albeit at an insufficient pace. [Emphasis added]

The economic decline sped up just as President Barack Obama took office. Unemployment jumped from 6.2 percent on Labor Day 2008 to 8.2 percent by President Obama's State of the Union on February 24, 2009. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman noted in March 2009, "At first, the current recession didn't hit industrial production all that hard. But the pace accelerated dramatically last fall. At this point we're sort of experiencing half a Great Depression. That's pretty bad."

After unemployment peaked at 10.1 percent in October 2009 the jobs picture has not gotten significantly better. The Bureau of Labor Statistics just announced September 2010 unemployment rate held steady at 9.6 percent. AP reported that "The jobless rate has now topped 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, the longest stretch since the 1930s."

These and other effects of the recession significantly added to many Americans' long-term economic uncertainty or fear. And this economic environment made politicians much more susceptible to Big Oil, dirty coal, and other special interests' "tired dance, where folks inside this beltway get paid a lot of money to say things that aren't true about public health initiatives," as noted by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. This includes skewed studies funded by the oil industry that predicted that global warming pollution reductions would devastate the economy.

The terrible economy and growing unemployment made it much more difficult to pass clean energy and global warming legislation. In fact, an analysis of the unemployment rate when fundamental environmental protection laws were enacted since Earth Day 1970 found that the annual unemployment rate was 6 percent or lower most of the year of enactment. [1] (see chart)

The first Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (hazardous waste disposal) were all enacted when unemployment was 6 percent or lower. Unemployment is 50 percent higher now. Only four major environmental laws were enacted with annual unemployment over 7 percent, and none with unemployment greater than 7.5 percent. Unemployment averaged 9.3 percent in 2009 and 9.7 through September 2010.

In other words, the worst unemployment in nearly 30 years made the up-hill climb to pass a global warming bill even steeper. And certainly the special interests' opposed to action on global warming played on Americans' concern about unemployment to frighten senators into opposing global warming action.

For instance, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association urged strong opposition to the APA:

The draconian carbon reduction targets and timetables in this bill would trigger destructive change in America's economic climate. This would add billions of dollars in energy costs for American families and businesses, destroy the jobs of millions of American workers, and make our nation more dependent on foreign energy sources…If senators want to increase the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States and postpone the resurgence of the American economy, then they should vote for this bill.

The American Petroleum Institute bought a series of television, radio, and print ads threatening job killing energy taxes. Its homepage headline reads, "More jobs not more taxes."

The heavily funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also poured money into defeating climate and clean energy action for the last several years. More recently, the Big Coal backed Faces of Coal front group staged rallies in protest of EPA's proposed global warming pollution regulations with signs reading "Coal Keeps the Lights on," and "Coal Miners 'Dig' Their Jobs."

Whatever it is, we're against it!

As if high unemployment weren't enough, Senate advocates of clean energy and global warming pollution reduction legislation had to contend with Senate rules that allow unlimited debate.

This required bill sponsors to persuade a 60-vote "supermajority" to end debate and pass their bill. With several Democrats unalterably opposed to action to reduce global warming the sponsors needed support from at least four or five Republican senators.

Lizza describes that this was difficult to achieve because opposition to global warming pollution reductions had grown in GOP ranks. What's more, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) convinced his senators that their route to the majority was a solid wall of opposition to whatever President Obama wanted to do for the nation.

Lizza reported that:

The Republican Party had grown increasingly hostile to the science of global warming and to cap-and-trade, associating the latter with a tax on energy and more government regulation. Sponsoring the bill wasn't going to help McCain defeat an opponent to his right.

By not automatically resisting everything connected to Obama, these senators risked angering Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader and architect of the strategy to oppose every part of Obama's agenda, and the Tea Party movement, which seemed to be gaining power every day.

Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (before he dropped out), the champions of climate legislation, could never break this wall of opposition or neutrality even among Republican senators who had previously sponsored or voted for global warming legislation.

This includes Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who sponsored multiple global warming pollution reduction bills and advocated significant reductions during his 2008 presidential campaign. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) also co-sponsored global warming bills in previous Congresses. Nearly four years ago Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) said: "It seems to me just prudent that we recognize we have climate increase and temperature change. We have CO2 loading and we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere."
Yet none of these senators publicly supported action or engaged in serious negotiations with key climate legislation crafters Sens. Kerry, Lieberman, or Graham in 2010.

This Republican lockstep opposition to the energy bill and other Democratic priorities is reflected in Senate floor voting patterns. Congressional Quarterly developed a "Party Unity" score based on the proportion of votes that "pitted a majority of one party against a majority of the other." Such votes reflect that each party's position was different, and a majority of the senators voted with their party.

The proportion of these party-unity votes have increased significantly over the last 20 years. (see chart) In the 101st Congress, serving from 1989-90, less than half the Senate votes were party-unity votes. Before 2009, the highest proportion of Senate party-unity votes occurred in the 104th Congress, from 1995-96. This was the so-called "Contract with America" Congress with the first Republican majority in both houses since 1953.

Republican leaders in 2009, however, adopted a strategy of opposing President Obama on every major legislative effort to deny him victories that would enhance his popularity. Seventy-two percent of Senate votes, therefore, were party unity votes. This grew to 79 percent in 2010, which means nearly four of five votes were along party lines.

The 111th Congress also saw an increase in the proportion of Republican senators voting with their party majority. Eighty-five percent of Republicans voted with their party in 2009, while that increased to 90 percent in 2010. By comparison, there were only 3 of 10 previous Congresses when Republicans were more unified.

Congressional Quarterly describes the increased Senate polarization in 2010.

Almost four out of five roll call votes in the Senate have pitted a majority of Democrats against a majority of Republicans—the highest percentage of so-called party-unity votes seen since Congressional Quarterly began tabulating them in 1953.

Most telling, however, is the support accorded President Obama on the 51 Senate roll calls this year… where he took a position. On average, Democrats supported him 95 percent of the time, up from 92 percent in 2009. And Republicans backed away from their 50 percent average presidential support score last year to vote with Obama just 42 percent of the time so far this election year.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), a conservative Democrat and no ally of global warming legislation, noted that the Senate Republican caucus had become more unified in opposition to Democrats. She said: "This Republican Party's not the one it used to be. There were moderates that would reach out with those of us that were moderate on the other side, but that's not the direction they're going in."

The best bill money could stop

The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act on June 26, 2009. This bill was supported by some major companies and trade associations, including the Edison Electric Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Fear of a consensus energy bill that had some industry support galvanized most big oil and coal companies to invest heavily in their efforts to oppose a Senate bill. Companies in these and other industries thus spent records amounts of money on lobbying, campaign donations, and other pressure tactics to defeat clean energy legislation in the Senate. And this spending does not include millions of dollars spent on message advertising, "astro turf" rallies (fake grass roots), and other pressure tactics that do not require public spending reports.

Opensecrets.org found that electric utilities and oil and gas companies spent more than $500 million in lobbying from January 2009 to June 2010, primarily to weaken or defeat energy legislation. A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis found that oil companies were six of the top seven spenders on lobbying and campaign contributions during this period, with ExxonMobil number one.

Big Oil's campaign contributions are heavily tilted toward Republicans, who received 70 percent of the contributions that went to the two parties. Opensecrets.org reports that as

… debate raged in Congress about offshore drilling, energy independence, 'cap-and-trade' legislation and a shift away from fossil-fuel energy sources … congressional candidates and federal political committees nationwide have raked in more than $17 million from the oil and gas industry so far during the 2010 election cycle—a number on pace to easily exceed that of the most recent midterm election four years ago.

The recipients of the funds have remained relatively consistent over the years, with Republicans accumulating a majority of the industry's campaign contributions.

The coal industry, too, gave nearly 70 percent of its campaign cash to Republicans.

The bigger picture

The New Yorker pulled back the curtain on the admirable but frustratingly unsuccessful efforts of Sens. Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, and others to achieve Senate passage of comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation. But Lizza pinning the blame on the White House or senators misses the larger factors behind this huge disappointment.
Al Gore spelled it out succinctly during an interview with Lizza after the legislation was dead for the year. He agreed that the economy, a unified wall of opposition in the Senate, and special interest spending were at the heart of this outcome.

I asked Al Gore why he thought climate legislation had failed. He cited several reasons, including Republican partisanship, which had prevented moderates from becoming part of the coalition in favor of the bill. The Great Recession made the effort even more difficult, he added. "The forces wedded to the old patterns still have enough influence that they were able to use the fear of the economic downturn as a way of slowing the progress toward this big transition that we have to make.

There were gale force economic, political, and special interest winds blowing against global warming legislation in 2010 that were beyond the influence of its champions. The question should not be "Why did they fail?" but "How did they get so far?"
Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress. Special thanks to Susan Lyon, Ben Kaldunski, and Laurel Hunt.

Endnotes

[1]. This includes all of the major pollution control laws and the Endangered Species Act. These laws established public health safeguards and pollution reduction requirements for industry. This assessment does not include nonregulatory laws such as public lands protection laws. Nor does it include laws that have some pro-environment provisions as part of a broader bill, such as the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
–Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at CAP.

Tags: Carbon and De-carbonizationClimatedaniel j. weissguest postPolitics & Legislationryan lizzasenatethe new yorker

October 12, 2010 by Joseph Romm

This is a cross post by CAP's Daniel J. Weiss.

Related Posts:

• The New Yorker: How the Senate and White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change
• The central question for 2010: Will anti-science ideologues be able to kill the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill?
  
  --
  Scott's Contracting
  scottscontracting@gmail.com
  http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
  
  

Koch Brother Join Big Oil for Campaign Contributions

Update 9/12/2010--->

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.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz0zKKJlyc4

 

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!!!

 http://www.grist.org/article/koch-brothers-jump-into-prop-23-fight/

Petrodollars

Koch brothers jump into Prop 23 fight 3

by Todd Woody

3 Sep 2010 12:13 PM

• 
  
• 
  

Read More About

AB 32, Big Oil, California, Climate & Energy, Green State, Green State, Politics, Proposition 23

• Print

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.

Stop Harming, Start Helping: Money for our Green Future, Not Big Oil

--- On Sun, 8/29/10, Scotts Contracting <scottscontracting@gmail.com> wrote: From: Scotts Contracting;scottscontracting@gmail.com> Subject: Stop Harming, Start Helping: Money for our Green Future, Not Big Oil To: buzscott@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, August 29, 2010, 1:26 PM Oil is at the core of concerns like the health of our communities, global warming, war, national security, and even poverty and developing country debt. The profits of the oil companies have increased just as the price of gas for all of us has gone up. Oil money fuels bad policy on Capitol Hill while Congress continues to give Big Oil $10 billion in tax subsidies each year. If these issues are of concern to you, check out Oil Change International, an organization that is leading the movement for a Separation of Oil & State! Visit www.PriceofOil.org to learn more. Be sure to check out Follow the Oil Money (www.FollowTheOilMoney.org) a tool that tells you which companies are pumping their dirty oil money into Congress, who is accepting it, and how it affects key climate, energy and war votes. Send your members of Congress a quick note urging them to separate oil and state, and then learn how to organize an SOS movement in your community!

Congress-Dirty Energy Money-US Politicians

No More Dirty Energy Money!

Congress' inability to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation is completely unacceptable.  

Enough is enough.  To break our nation's addiction to oil and coal, our Representatives will clearly have to break their addiction to dirty energy money. 





No more oily Representatives. No more subsidies to these rich corporations as rewards for campaign contributions. 







Our government should represent us, not the fossil fuel industry.  





Use this tool to write your Representatives in Washington today and demand that they end their addiction to dirty energy money!

Loading data, please wait ....

In order to address your message to the appropriate recipient, we need to identify where you are.
Please enter your zip/postal code:

To Find the Top Contributors and The Politicians who are receiving Political Pay-Offs use the following link: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com


  Energy-policy analysis and congressional action

Dirty Money-Our Missouri Government Leaders

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.

Build Green,
Scotty

http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Congress' inability to pass meaningful energy legislation is simply unacceptable.  I am convinced that if we're going to end our addiction to fossil fuels, Congress must end its addiction to fossil fuel campaign finance.  Please assure me that you will no longer accept campaign contributions from the oil, coal, and gas industries. "You Three have collected:$455,759.00 from the Oil and Coal Organizations"
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

 

Missouri Legislators-Zip Code 63109

Recently I posted some interesting facts about our Government Leaders and their ties to Big OIL. I will be: 'contacting and reporting' the findings of my areas Missouri Legislators Stance on Renewable Energy Producing Systems and Weatherization.

Prior Articles can be found:

Our Sorry Ass Politicians and Renewable Energy Policy

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...

St Louis Renewable Energy: Politics and Climate Change July News

Jul 29, 2010-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 ...

St Louis Renewable Energy: Oil and US Politics-Following the Oil Money

Jul 29, 2010-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. ...

The zipcode you entered, 63109-3558, is currently in:

• Senatorial district 001 - Senator Jim Lembke
• House district 066 - Representative Michael Vogt
• U.S. House district 03 - Congressman Russ Carnahan

At the time of this posting I have sent emails to the above people, Scotty


Your statewide elected officials are:

• Governor Jay Nixon
• Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder
• Secretary of State Robin Carnahan
• State Auditor Susan Montee
• State Treasurer Clint Zweifel
• Attorney General Chris Koster

Your US Senators are:

• Senator Christopher 'Kit' Bond
• Senator Claire McCaskill

Email Sent to the Senators above, with Request on their Views and Stance in regard to: Renewable Energy and Weatherization- Aug 1st. Scotty
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Our Sorry Ass Politicians and Renewable Energy Policy

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 always vote 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.

Wouldn't that be special?

Article sent by email to me from: http://www.solar-nation.org

This is a follow-up to articles:

• St Louis Renewable Energy: Oil and US Politics-Following the Oil Money

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.

• St Louis Renewable Energy: Oil and Gas Political Contributions

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. ..

• St Louis Renewable Energy: Politics and Climate Change July News

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 ...

• Politics as usual-The bill is SJ Res. 26.

Obama's greenhouse gas rules survive Senate vote ... Build Green, Scotty -- Scott's Contracting scottscontracting@gmail.com http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Oil and Gas Political Contributions

	Scotty-Not all the Tables Copied to Page See Links at bottom of Page for Complete Tables Oil & Gas: Money to Congress Total contributions: $13,872,160 Rank Organization Amount Dems Repubs Source Indivs PACs Soft $ 1 Koch Industries $724,300 14% 86% 2 Exxon Mobil $548,214 13% 87% 3 Chevron Corp $516,891 18% 82% 4 Valero Energy $467,000 17% 83% 5 Marathon Oil $378,190 23% 76% 6 Occidental Petroleum $314,050 20% 80% 7 Williams Companies $311,500 26% 74% 8 American Gas Assn $250,500 43% 56% 9 Devon Energy $230,970 12% 87% 10 Chesapeake Energy $228,480 57% 43% 11 Anadarko Petroleum $227,150 21% 79% 12 ConocoPhillips $201,947 29% 71% 13 Mewbourne Oil Co $180,500 5% 95% 14 Pilot Corp $164,140 5% 95% 15 Plains Exploration & Production $154,700 23% 76% 16 Bass Brothers Enterprises $145,215 40% 60% 17 Enterprise Products Partners $145,150 19% 81% 18 Independent Petroleum Assn of America $144,500 25% 75% 19 Red Apple Group $140,100 61% 38% 20 Society of Indep Gasoline Marketers $133,500 63% 37% 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. Big Oil and Gas Political Contributions Election Cycle
	2010*	14	$13,872,160	$8,131,890	$5,740,270
	2008*	16	$35,690,662	$25,594,958	$10,095,704
	2006*	14	$20,372,756	$12,089,647	$8,283,109
	2004*	16	$26,077,264	$18,963,016	$7,114,248
	2002	13	$25,037,766	$8,514,319	$6,450,281
	2000	10	$34,323,192	$11,353,899	$6,928,043
	1998	8	$21,622,444	$6,342,453	$6,767,892
	1996	7	$26,015,197	$9,621,114	$6,539,583
	1994	7	$17,729,113	$6,712,122	$6,492,029
	1992	7	$20,581,722	$8,834,872	$6,462,523
	1990	8	$10,911,614	$4,829,390	$6,082,224
	Total	10	$252,233,890	$120,987,680	$76,955,906

Soft Money Contributions	Donations to Democrats	Donations to Republicans
N/A	$3,952,205	$9,900,476
N/A	$8,137,815	$27,534,717
N/A	$3,629,686	$16,653,466
N/A	$5,063,900	$20,989,499
$10,073,166	$5,028,030	$19,999,841
$16,041,250	$7,054,356	$26,759,817
$8,512,099	$5,040,155	$16,501,692
$9,854,500	$5,960,180	$19,628,720
$4,524,962	$6,652,777	$11,054,891
$5,284,327	$6,907,222	$13,491,397
N/A	$4,161,315	$6,749,999
$54,290,304	$61,587,641	$189,264,515

% to Dems	% to Repubs
28%	71%
23%	77%
18%	82%
19%	80%
20%	80%
21%	78%
23%	76%
23%	75%
38%	62%
34%	66%
38%	62%
24%	75%

Tables Provided by: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=e01

†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.

-- Scott's Contracting scottscontracting@gmail.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com