CONGRESS 2

see main Legislature for older content 9/16

TOOLS:

legislation

http://www.outdooralliance.org/legislative-tracking/

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/joe_wilson/400433

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01032018/spending-bill-riders-environment-climate-dark-money-campaign-finance-political-donations

Congressional Republicans are planning a two-fisted assault on climate and other environmental policies as they push a must-pass spending package for the current fiscal year, which is already half over.

In a perennial ritual on Capitol Hill, they have laden the legislation with anti-environment riders.At the same time, they are pushing provisions this year that could turn on the spigots for a new flow of dark money into elections, according to a coalitionof public interest groups and Democratic lawmakers.

The campaign finance measures are just as troubling to advocates of climate change policies as are the special-interest riders. Both tools are favored by the fossil fuel industry and its allies. Opponents of action on global warming, like the billionaire petrochemical magnate Koch brothers, have funneled money and influence into the political process through an ever-changing network of advocacy groups, such as Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity.

The package of riders, if approved, "would be the most fundamental change in the money and politics landscape since the horrible 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision," said Robert Weissman, president of the watchdog group Public Citizen. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United spawned the creation of super PACs—political action committees that can receive unlimited campaign contributions from corporations, unions and individuals, as long as those donations are disclosed and the super PAC's political activities are not coordinated with those of candidates.

2 Ways Bills Would Influence Money in Politics

The Senate version of the massive "omnibus" appropriations legislation that Congress must pass by March 23 to avoid a government shutdown includes a measure that would relax the limits on how much money national parties may spend in coordination with presidential campaigns. This would make it easier for mega-donors to get around the current limits on direct donations to candidates.

The House version of the bill includes language to open the door to campaign spending by churches. President Donald Trump called for Congress to take such action last year when he signed a "religious liberty" executive order.

During a failed attempt to attach the provision to the GOP tax overhaul billlast year, lawmakers expanded it to allow political activity not only by churches but all public charities, including private family foundations like those favored by the Koch brothers and other wealthy donors, and public interest advocates fear that could happen again. The at the time estimated such a measure could result in$1 billionbeing diverted into churches and charities for political giving—since such contributions would be tax-deductible, unlike giving to political organizations.

More Than 80 Anti-Environment Riders

Last year, Democrats were successful in stripping 160 riders out of an earlier stopgap spending bill before its passage.

More than 80 anti-environmental-policy riders are included in either the House-passed version of the new appropriations bill or in the Senate drafts this year, said Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice. They include 12 riders to block enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, including protection of the Sage Grouse, whose numbers are dwindling across 11 western states, where habitat protection interferes with mining and oil and gas activities.

one rider...f the Environmental Protection Agency's stringent ozone standard—a rule that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has repeatedly sought to delay.

Congressional Republicans are also seeking to include provisions that would make it more difficult in the future to tighten air quality standards for ozone, more commonly known as smog. Ozone, a product of fossil fuel pollution, is one of the most thoroughly studied pollutants; the Obama administration's assessment of the science cited 2,300 studies that establish the threat it poses to health.

"What the Congressional Republicans are trying to do is give the cover of law to Pruitt's attempt to undermine the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other laws we already have in place," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

Another rider would block implementation of the Interior Department's rule prohibiting gas flaring and methane venting on federal land—an Obama-era regulation that only last week was upheld by a federal judge. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has begun the formal process of rewriting the rule, after courts have blocked at least four efforts at a short-cut repeal. Van Noppen called the rider "a Congressional end-run."

The riders also cover a wide array of hot-button issues that likely will command more political attention than either campaign finance or climate. They include funding for Trump's Mexico border wall, blocking CDC funding for studying gun violence, and an amendment to limit the scope and duration of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

-=-=

AN 9 26

President Donald Trump's new scheme to try and reduce fuel costs ahead of the election was to announce that he'd be taking some of the Venezuelan oil. But, Congress told the Pentagon it's not legal, Semafor reported Thursday.

Experts have made it clear that the thick, tar-like oil in Venezuela's fields requires a specialized refineries to process the oil into usable fuel. There's also a major infrastructure issue. The country lacks the necessary upgrades to get it out of the oil fields. Infrastructure has suffered years of under-investment and deterioration, CNBC reported. Repairing pipelines, power systems, drilling equipment and upgrades could take years.

But oil reserves aren't the same as barrels currently being produced. Experts agree that, at most, Trump's plot could put modest downward pressure on prices over the longer term, but it likely wouldn't impact fuel prices for 10-15 years, the report said.

Semafor cited a person familiar with the matter who said that Congress told the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Capital that it doesn't have the authority to take an equity stake in a private company. Trump used the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Capital to take an equity stake in the second-largest oil firm in Venezuela.

"It did so by declining to pass legislative proposals that would have granted the office the legal authority to seek equity stakes that were submitted by the Pentagon in recent years," the person told Semafor.

Skeptical lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are asking the Trump administration to give information about the effort and how it would work.

The more immediate problem is accessing oil elsewhere, like Iran. Analysts made it clear that the Iran conflict and disruptions in global oil routes are exerting a much greater short-term influence on prices than Trump's Venezuela scheme.

U.S. pump prices respond to worldwide crude prices, refinery capacity, transportation costs, seasonal demand and geopolitical disruptions. It trades on the global market. So, even Trump flooding the U.S. market with oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) can only go on so long. The Reserve continues to blow through its nearly 290 million barrels left in an effort to soften the blow of soaring gas prices.

Currently, U.S. refineries are operating at near capacity (97 percent), the *Wall Street Journal* reported this week. More oil doesn't automatically mean more gasoline if there isn't enough refinery capacity to process it.

Venezuelan oil would be only one additional source of supply and could not control the global market on its own.

-=-=

https://www.dcreport.org/2017/11/20/how-trump-and-congress-are-erasing-the-last-20-years/

They’re Using an Obscure 1990s Law to Wipe Out Regulations Protecting Citizens and the Environment

By Jillian S. Ambroz

The Republicans of the 115th Congress and Trump have not accomplished much in the way of landmark legislation this year, unless you count overturning President Barack Obama’s achievements. And on that front, they’ve been prolific.

In Trump’s first four months of office, he and Congress have completely eliminated 14 rules issued by Obama—rules ranging from things like protecting Americans from coal waste in drinking water to blocking individuals with severe mental illness from buying firearms—using the Congressional Review Act.

And lest you think that headache of a legislation that had only been wielded once in 21 years before now might be going away anytime soon, think again.

Congress has targeted at least 31 rules in just 11 months, including the ones that have been nullified already, according to a report prepared by former senior staff member of the Congressional Research Service, Curtis W. Copeland. Those that have not been disapproved have been introduced to the House and await further action.

It’s not enough to just remove the rules, this Republican-led Congress and Trump want to nullify these acts completely, as if they never took place.

To do that requires a joint resolution by a simple majority in each house of Congress, which is easy for this current legislative branch. After 60 legislative days, Trump can sign the resolution into law and nullify the previous rule.

But once undone, it’s not easy to reinstate a rule removed by the Congressional Review Act, which is written so that essentially a new law is required to reinstate a new or similar rule like the one that was removed by it. And that is how people like influential ex-White House strategist Steve Bannon and pollution advocate Myron Ebell, who was in charge of the blueprint for the transition and transformation of the Environmental Protection Agency, crafted this deregulation regime that could take years to undo once Trump leaves office.

Bannon once said the goal of the Trump presidency is the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”

ACTION BOX/What You Can Do About It

Contact the White House and tell Trump using the Congressional Review Act and undoing these regulations is harmful to the American people. Call 202-456-1111, reach him on Twitter or email.

Contact Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) by phone at 202-225-3031, email, Facebook or Twitter. Contact Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)by phone at 202-224-2541, email, Facebook or Twitter.

As always, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to stop using the CRA to roll back safeguards for the American public.

The Congressional Review Act was part of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

Before Trump took office, the Congressional Review Act was only used once before when the 107th Congress overturned a rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The rule addressed ergonomic injuries in the workplace.

Here are just a few of the rules Congress and Trump have overturned:

Oil Company Foreign Payment Disclosure Rule: Forced oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments.
The Stream Protection Rule: Enforced regulations on coal mine operators to protect streams and other water sources from coal waste.
Workplace Injuries Rule: Required employers to maintain accurate records of serious workplace injuries and illnesses for up to five years.
Gun Control Amendment: Required the Social Security Administration to provide instant information to the National Instant Criminal History Background Check System on individuals meeting certain criteria, including severe mental health issues, that would prevent them from being able to purchase a firearm.

“Time and time again, Republicans have abused the Congressional Review Act to appease the extreme right wing of their party and ensure giveaways to corporate special interests,” top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a Politicoarticle.

It was thought there was a finite window for the Congress and Trump to employ the Congressional Review Act, which was previously considered a vehicle to undo so-called “Midnight Regulations” of an outgoing administration. The consensus was Obama actions only back to 2016 could be undone. That may not be the case. Technically, Congress can go back over unsubmitted agency rules, too—all the way back to 1996—and belatedly submit them for disapproval. Thousands of rules and regulations could be up for disapproval.

In May, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) introduced a bill to repeal the Congressional Review Act. It’s unlikely the Republican-led Congress will give up its most powerful tool anytime soon. At least not before the 116thCongress is sworn in.

http://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-option-gorsuch-2347867635.html

Senate Republicans Rig System, Trigger 'Nuclear Option' to Push Through Gorsuch

Senate Republicans rushed through a confirmation vote Thursday on President Donald Trump's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Neil Gorsuch has been met with widespread criticism both across the country and from the Senate before, during and after his confirmation process.

For more than 200 years, the Senate has honored a 60 vote margin for Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed. Gorsuch only received 55. According to existing Senate procedure, Gorsuch's nomination would be defeated and the Senate would move forward without confirming him to the court. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell changed the rules and triggered the so-called "nuclear option" for what had been deemed the "greatest deliberative body" to force Gorsuch's nomination through.

The Senate rightfully rejected Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is their duty to advise and consent on judicial nominees and with this vote, they refused their consent and advised President Donald Trump that Gorsuch is not fit to be granted a lifetime appointment to America's highest court..

http://grist.org/climate-energy/surprise-a-third-of-congress-members-are-climate-change-deniers/

An annual tally of climate deniers in Congress just came out, and there’s good news and bad news. The good news: You’re smarter than 34 percent of Congress. The bad news: You’re smarter than 34 percent of Congress.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund found that there are 182 climate deniers in the current Congress: 144 in the House and 38 in the Senate. That means more than six in 10 Americans are represented by people who think that climate change is a big ‘ol liberal hoax — including some leaders at the highest levels of government, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch “I Am Not a Scientist” McConnell and senator and presidential candidate Marco “I Am Not a Scientist” Rubio. (And those are just the members of Congress who are out-and-out deniers, so it doesn’t include the many more who kinda sorta admit that something might be going on with the climate but still don’t want to do anything about it.)

Not surprisingly, many of these same climate deniers have been handsomely rewarded by the fossil fuel industry. In total, these climate-denying congresspeople have received more than $73 million in contributions from oil, gas, and coal companies over the course of their careers. To get the specifics, check out this handy interactive map, which breaks down exactly who in each state is a climate change denier — and exactly how much cash they’ve gotten from dirty energy.

Take Oklahoma, for example, where five out of seven of the current crop of congresspeople are climate deniers. Sen. James Inhofe, who holds the dubious distinction of being the most infamous denier in Congress, has received more than $2 million from fossil fuel interests. He not only called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” he actually threw a snowball on the Senate floor last year in a hilarious attempt to disprove climate change. He did not disprove climate change, but perhaps the stunt earned him an extra check from Oklahoma’s natural gas industry.

The problem is, not the ones in office.If there’s a silver lining to this dark news, it’s this: Even though a healthy portion our nation’s leaders continue to perpetuate the dangerous myth that climate change isn’t real, the people know better. Nearly 70 percent of Americans support climate change action, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund — and that includes many Republicans. Last year, a survey conducted by Republican pollsters found that even most conservative Republicans both believe climate change is real and support clean energy.

1/17

The head of the city department that drafts many of San Francisco’s greenest rules and regulations uses one word to explain her greatest fear for the environment during Donald Trump’s presidency: “preemption.”

If some of the deepest concerns of climate-focused bureaucrats from San Francisco to Massachusetts and New York come true, the Trump administration will preemptively prevent them from acting to slow global warming.

With Trump and Republicans in Congress widely expected to unite to undermine federal environmental protections, progressive states and cities are making plans to fight global warming within their borders without being helped or required to do so by the U.S. government.

“Preemption is probably the progressive cities’ worst nightmare,” saidDeborah Raphael, director of San Francisco’s environment department, which has helped city lawmakers craft rules mandating everything from greener buildings to composting and recycling by residents. “It’s also the state of California’s worst nightmare.”

The term “preemption” doesn’t describe a single legislative or regulatory tool. The word describes a concept, in which the federal government or a state imposes restrictions on the rules and programs that governments operating beneath it are allowed to implement.

Conservative lawmakers in North Carolina used a preemption law last year tooutlaw transgender protectionsin Charlotte. In Michigan, cities and counties were barred from banning plastic bags. Colorado prevents local governments from banning fracking.

With Republicans about to control both houses of Congress and the White House, environmental experts are warning of battles ahead over potential federal preemptions.

“There really is virtually no aspect of federal regulation of the natural environment or health that’s not at risk of preemption now,” said Mark Pertschuk, a lawyer and activist with the nonprofit Grassroots Change, which tracks state preemptions of local rules affecting gun safety, paid sick days, factory farming and other issues. “Federal laws almost always trump state and local laws.”

It’s difficult to predict when, how or whether the federal government will wield any tools of preemption to bar cities and states from enforcing their own environmental rules. Nonetheless, governments across the country are bracing for new restrictions. California’s decision to hire Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., showed it’s preparing to fight for state rights in court.

“Everything is speculative right now,” said Cooper Martin, a sustainability official at the National League of Cities, which represents cities in state capitols and on Capitol Hill. Based on Trump’s anti-environmental cabinet nominees and his rhetoric on climate change, which he has falsely called a hoax, Martin said fears of federal preemption are “certainly well founded.”

“It’s just the nature of the political landscape that this hasn’t been an issue on climate, at least in the last eight years,” Martin said, referring to the length of Obama’s presidency. “It was certainly an issue prior to that.”

Clean car rules in California, which are unpopular with oil companies and auto manufacturers, offer what may be the clearest opportunity for federal preemption. Other rules that could be blocked relate to appliance efficiency standards, power plant pollution, fossil fuel exports and safe disposal of pharmaceuticals. Local governments that have spent federal transportation funds on cycling and transit initiatives could be prevented from doing so in the future.

“Programs that allow cities to invest in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, or that allow cities to invest in transit, have all become more popular, particularly in the larger cities,” Martin said. “We want to make sure that there’s flexibility for the cities that do choose to go down this path.”

The Clean Air Act allows California to enforce stricter standards on car pollution than the federal government. It also allows other states to adopt California’s rules. But to do so, California needs a waiver from the EPA. When George W. Bush was president, the EPA refused to issue such a waiver, which was eventually granted after Obama became president.

Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has repeatedly sued the agency, arguing that federal pollution rules violate state rights. Now he might lead a charge to limit the rights of states to enforce their own pollution rules to slow climate change.

Within days of Trump’s election, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers sent the president-elect a letter arguing that the “regulatory friction” caused by two sets of car pollution standards is “driving up vehicle costs.” The automakers implored Trump to eliminate California’s far-reaching clean car rules through what they call “harmonization” with federal regulations.

“We could see the U.S. EPA refuse to grant future waivers; there’s even been some talk that they could try to strip away existing waivers,” said Bill Magavern, the policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, a California nonprofit. “It’s safe to say California would sue in either instance.”

Michael Wara, an energy and environment expert at Stanford Law School, said the federal government could go further than car standards and try to revoke the rights of states to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution billowed by power plants. It could also jeopardize “anything that smells like foreign policy” by states, Wara said, including linkages between a carbon pricing system operated jointly by California and Quebec.

“Anything that looks and feels like a treaty — that creates binding obligations on both sides — is going to face increased judicial scrutiny,” Wara said. “Here, if there is any conflict, the state loses.”

Not all talk of federal preemption is hypothetical. Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican from Texas, introduced a bill last week that would repeal federal efficiency standards affecting washing machines, dryers, ceiling fans, fridges and other appliances. It would also prevent states from adopting any product standards governing “energy conservation or water efficiency.”

The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, supports Burgess’s anti-regulatory drive on appliances, but it’s worried that his bill would curtail state rights.

“We don’t believe the federal government should mandate energy conservation,” said Nicolas Loris, a Heritage Foundation energy and environmental policy fellow who has analyzed Burgess’s bill. “But we don’t think the federal government should prohibit the states from doing so.”

latest analysis of the correlation between votes and contributionsfocused on climate change. Turns out that lawmakers who voted for an amendment stating that human activities contribute significantly to climate change received less than one-fifth as much in campaign contributions from theoil & gasandcoalindustries as those who voted against it.

guar uk ref no link

...Climate change is now more polarizing in the US than abortion or gay marriage. At the same time, climate denial has become the norm among Republican policymakers, as they’ve grown increasingly anti-environment. As the study notes:

What was once a modest tendency for Congressional Republicans to be less pro-environmental than their Democratic counterparts has become a chasm—with Republicans taking near-unanimous anti-environmental stances on relevant legislation in recent years, especially 2015.

League of Conservation Voters’ environmental voting scores U.S. Congress – by chamber and party.

League of Conservation Voters’ environmental voting scores U.S. Congress – by chamber and party. Photograph: Dunlap et al. (2016).

Policymakers work for their constituents, so if Republican voters are generally apathetic about the tremendous threats posed by climate change, party leaders have relatively little motivation to tackle the problem (aside from the obvious, like protecting future generations and the long-term viability of their political party).

However, the public responds to cues from intellectual and cultural leaders. Were Republican leaders to start listening to climate science experts, many of their voters would likely follow suit. After all, most American conservatives already support climate policies; they just don’t view the issue as a priority. Unfortunately, today’s Republican Party is essentially controlled by the fossil fuel industry. As the study notes:

we and others have argued that the conservative movement, fearful of the regulatory implications of climate change, and seeking to defend the current economic system built on fossil fuel use, has been the driving force behind organized climate change denial.

...

nice graph show diverge]

ref

http://www.ecowatch.com/182-total-number-of-climate-deniers-in-congress-1882189472.html

...

But here’s a sad truth for Americans who believe in science: The majority of members of the ruling GOP party in Washington, DC. refuse to accept the science that climate change is happening and that human beings are to blame.

According to a new report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 59 percent of the House Republican caucus and 70 percent of Senate Republicans refuse to accept the reality of climate change. This means there are a total of 182 climate change deniers in the House and Senate who collectively represent more than 200 million American citizens (based on their district/state size that they represent in Congress).

So how is it possible that the majority of Americans are willing to accept science yet their own representatives ignore it? The answer, as usual, comes down to money.

The Center for American Progress report shows that the fossil fuel industry has given more $73 million to these science-denying politicians; $10 million of which came in just the last 12 months, perhaps spurred on by recent reports showing that 2015 once again broke temperature records or maybe concerned about the falling demand for fossil fuels. But whatever the reason, that $73 million is apparently all it takes to ignore the desires of 200 million concerned American citizens.

The challenge is presenting the issue in terms that might get people more active than just “understanding” the problem. This is what I discussed on a recent episode of The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT America and you can catch the discussion in the video below:

60% of pl repped by deniers; 69 59 gop beleive

A new study from professors at Oklahoma State University has found that Republicans and Democrats have never been so far apart on climate issues.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995

img

Fox News' Megyn Kelly interviews The Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman

"What was once a modest tendency for Congressional Republicans to be less pro-environmental than their Democratic counterparts has become a chasm—with Republicans taking near-unanimous anti-environmental stances on relevant legislation in recent years, especially 2015," the study said.

This distance between the parties was further exacerbated by the rise of the Koch-funded Tea Party, which took the hard line of fully dismissing the climate change threat, often making climate change a lightning rod for voters who were outraged at Washington.

As they stoked fears about the U.S. government attempting to pass legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the Tea Party normalized climate denial throughout the Republican Party, according to Ohio State University's Prof. Riley E. Dunlap and Jerrod H. Yarosh, and Michigan State Associate Professor Aaron M. McCright.

Global warming views by party controlling for education and era. Illustration: Dunlap et al. (2016)The Gallup Organization

Another study, cited by The Guardian [no link]Tuesday, concludes that the growth of conservative media has cemented this gap.

Conservative newspaper The Wall Street Journal was found to publish inaccurate information on the topic, according to a report by Media Matters for America.

"Out of 93 climate-related opinion pieces published in the Journal during the time period examined, 31 featured climate science denial or other scientifically inaccurate claims about climate change (33 percent)," Media Matters for America said.

A 2013 study found that those Americans who consumed news from conservative news sources such as Fox had a higher distrust of science and scientists, than did those who read or watched non-conservative media.

Breaking through to those who fiercely deny the existence of climate change is no easy task, the Ohio State University researchers concluded.

The countermovement includes "fossil fuel corporations and business allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, conservative think tanks and their funders, conservative media, and a large supporting cast of front groups, bloggers and contrarian scientists," according to Media Matters for America.

"Does any persuasive framing strategy hold special promise for penetrating Republicans' partisan/ideological identities? The evidence so far gives us little basis for optimism."

Since Republicans have spent so long telling their constituents that climate change is not a serious threat, they are in no position to do anything about it in government.

This leaves the Democrats with the responsibility to pass as much legislation to lessen the impact of climate change and deal with its consequences. Since Republicans insist on vetoing nearly all legislation concerning the threat, it is likely that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will have to follow Obama's footsteps and implement policy through executive actions.

Conservative media and politicians may not be the only reasons why Americans are so divided about the climate:Corporate groups are also hedging their bets and throwing investment behind both sides, an investigation by Reuters found.

Some of the country's most vocal corporate supporters of Obama's environmental programs have been found to be funding some of the most ardent anti-climate change politicians in Washington. Among these companies are PepsiCo, Dupont and Google, Reuters said on Tuesday.

Though companies often split their campaign donations to both parties, arguing for both sides of a particular issue may be a problem, the head of the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute Jon Kukomnik told Reuters.

"There really needs to be a process that looks at these issues … at C-suite and board levels on a periodic basis," he said.

Of the 35 biggest U.S. companies which signed on to Obama's American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge last year, 25 of these companies are supporting Congressional climate deniers by helping to fund their campaigns.

These climate deniers include North Dakota Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer, who once argued the Earth was getting cooler and not warmer, and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, who once held up a snowball in the Senate to prove that global warming is not occurring.

Other companies which signed the environmental pact and then gave political donations to climate deniers are Mondelez, Google, AT&T, Verizon and GE.

Only GE responded to Reuters' requests for comment, saying it supports "elected officials based on a wide range of issues." The company insists it has been "outspoken about the need to address climate change."

Sen. Inhofe said businesses might have signed the environmental pact because it appeared politically expedient to do so at that moment.

"These are competitive companies, and the board might have said, 'Look, right now it might be a popular thing to join this, and there's no downside since we're not really committing to anything,'" he said.

However, investors may want companies to be more committed to environmental sustainability, Lauren Compere of Boston Common Asset Management said.

"No company wants to be perceived as espousing progressive climate policies on the one hand, while funding climate deniers on the other," she said.

ref

Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development

Volume 58, 2016 - Issue 5

Research article

The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S.

Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright & Jerrod H. Yarosh

Riley E. Dunlap is Regents Professor of Sociology at Oklahoma State University. He chaired the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change and co-edited the resulting report, Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Aaron M. McCright is an associate professor of sociology in Lyman Briggs College, the Department of Sociology, and the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Michigan State University.

Jerrod H. Yarosh is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at Oklahoma State University and specializes in environmental sociology and social psychology.

The authors thank the Gallup Organization for making the data sets employed in this article available for analysis. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Gallup Organization.

Page 4-23 | Published online: 25 Aug 2016

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995