Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the eighteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

Tucson, Arizona has quite an environmental legacy. For 40 years it was the political base of the Udall brothers — Stewart, a U.S. Representative in the 1950s and Interior Secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and Morris, a U.S. Representative for 30 years and a pioneering environmentalist. Most of Tucson, along with Arizona’s southeastern desert, make up the state’s 8th Congressional District. Politically this district leans Republican, but only slightly. John McCain carried the district in the 2008 election, and for more than 20 years moderate Republican Jim Kolbe represented the district in the U.S. House. Since Kolbe’s retirement in 2007, the 8th district has been represented by Tucson native and former state Senator Gabrielle Giffords (D). This November, Giffords is being challenged by Republican Jesse Kelly, an Iraq War veteran and “Tea Party” favorite, who won the August 24 primary in an upset victory over former State Senator Jonathan Paton.

Giffords has built on the Udall brothers’ environmental legacy, making solar energy one of her top legislative priorities, saying that she wants Arizona to be “the Silicon Valley of solar energy.” During her first three years in Congress, Giffords has voted the right way on just about every environmental issue, earning a career rating of over 90% from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Last June, she supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), our nation’s first climate bill and an important step forward in creating green jobs. Her vote for ACES was supported by many Arizona community and business leaders. In a statement following the vote, Giffords said that ACES will “help jumpstart our economy. We’ve seen that right here in Arizona, where a small but vibrant solar energy industry is taking root. Arizona can be a world leader in solar energy production and use. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help us achieve this goal.”

Kelly’s position on clean energy and climate couldn’t be further from Giffords. He believes we should “toss cap and trade,” which he calls a “massive tax increase & jobs killer.” The truth, according to according to collaborative research by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California, is that ACES could lead to as many as 1.9 new jobs nationally; 24,000 in Arizona alone. And according to experts at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cost the average household $175 a year, or less than 50 cents a day.

Kelly doesn’t just stop at attacking ACES, he also takes issue with the overwhelming evidence of global warming, calling it “junk-science.” The experts at the National Academy of Sciences, our most authoritative scientific body, strongly disagree with Kelly’s claims, saying, ”Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

Kelly’s stance on climate is unsurprising given that he has signed Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax Pledge.” Americans for Prosperity is the big oil funded think tank behind the tea party movementwhose campaign is being supported by ultra-conservative Koch Industries.

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

By Ann Notthoff

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

As summer turns to fall and hopes for federal climate action fade, all eyes are turned to California – but not for the gubernatorial or senate races. Those are important surely, but something else has riveted the nation’s attention: Proposition 23. In the past week, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have published major news stories on this initiative, and the Times ran an editorial this week opposing its passage and highlighting its national significance. The Los Angeles Times has devoted regular coverage to Proposition 23 since it was slated for the November ballot.

Why all the hoopla? Because Proposition 23 is a bald-faced attempt by out-of-state oil refiners to quash AB 32, California’s landmark climate bill. In the four short years since it was enacted, AB 32 has sent a clear market signal that has attracted billions of dollars in investments, generated thousands of jobs and put California on the path of cutting our global warming pollution. George Shultz, the former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan has joined with NRDC and others to co-chair the No on 23 campaign. He noted in this week’s New York Times editorial that AB 32 has created an “outburst” of venture capital investment and high tech innovation in the Golden State.

If we don’t stop Proposition 23, it will affect more than California. AB 32 is a game changer – and the same can be said of Proposition 23. They promise two very different futures. Implementation of AB 32 will continue California’s environmental legacy as a national and world leader in both the development of clean energy and combating global warming. It is a giant step forward. But if AB 32 is a great step forward, Proposition 23 is a Brobdingnagian step back. It keeps California stuck on fossil fuels, and assures laggard status in the race for the new technologies that will drive the world economy in the coming century. In the recent New York Times front page news story, Gene Karpinksi, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, called Proposition 23 “…by far the single most important ballot measure to date testing public support for… a clean energy economy.”

So as we get to crunch time (voting starts early on the west coast by absentee ballots arriving as early as October 4th), Californians will be voting for more than candidates and measures. Proposition 23 is a referendum on just who we are as a people – confident of today and the future or afraid to let go of the past. Make no mistake: regardless of how Californians vote, there will be winners and losers in the clean tech race. The New York Times editorial expressed this eloquently:

“Who wins if (AB 32) is repudiated? The Koch Brothers, maybe, but the biggest winners will be the Chinese, who already are moving briskly ahead in the clean technology race. And the losers? The people of California, surely. But the biggest loser will be the planet.”

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the sixteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

Andrew Jackson’s homeland, upstate South Carolina, is today’s topic. The 5th Congressional District includes all or parts of 14 counties extending from the Charlotte, NC suburbs down to the central part of the state. The 5th district has not elected a Republican since Reconstruction, and since 1983 has been represented in the U.S. House by Democrat John Spratt. The senior member of the state’s Congressional delegation, Spratt chairs the House Budget Committee and is the 2nd ranking member on the Armed Services Committees. In more than two decades in Congress, Spratt has typically won re-election by wide margins. This fall, Republican challenger Mick Mulvaney will try to buck that trend.

During his tenure in Congress, Spratt has been a consistent vote for clean energy and the environment, earning a perfect, 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) last year. Most importantly, he voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), an extraordinarily important piece of environmental legislation which the New York Times described as “the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change.” On his website, Spratt discusses the negotiation process on ACES and refutes misconceptions about the bill. He says that while he initially had concerns about the bill, along with other members of the South Carolina delegation, he was able to advance changes “lowering costs to consumers and protecting trade-affected and energy-intensive industries.” Spratt also takes on “unfounded” cost estimates of the bill, noting that according to “the neutral, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) … the average increase per household would be approximately $175 per year. However, this estimate does not include consumer savings from tax credits and grants for efficiency and weatherization.”

Mick Mulvaney, on the other hand, thinks that global warming is “based on questionable science,” and that the answer to our energy challenges should be, in large part, “making it easier to drill for and use domestic resources.” He has signed the radical Americans for Prosperity’s No Climate Tax Pledge. This front group is funded by oil industry magnate David Koch. David Koch and his brother Charles, as you may know, are the nefarious billionaires who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to undermine environmental regulations and to push other right-wing causes. In fact, as Greenpeace reports the Koch’s have funneled nearly $50 million to climate-denial front groups, earning the title of the “kingpin[s] of climate science denial.”

Mulvaney also calls solar power “wildly inefficient and outrageously expensive” and disparages other forms of renewable energy – wind, geothermal – as well. In contrast, Mulvaney praises coal-fired power plants as “more efficient producers of energy” than renewables, arguing that “building new, clean, coal-fired plants are the most economical, and most environmentally responsible, way to generate the energy we need.” Of course as NRDC makes clear, there’s no such thing as clean, environmentally responsible coal. From mountaintop removal mining to smokestack emissions, which are responsible for 24,000 deaths a year, every step of the coal power cycle is dirty. Coal is cheap and abundant, and with carbon capture and storage technology its can be part of a low-carbon energy mix, but it will never be clean.

Furthermore, Mulvaney has attacked Rep. Spratt for supporting the House’s Gulf response bill, the CLEAR Act (HR 3534), claiming that it’s a tax that will result in higher gas prices. In actuality, as NRDC explains, “the CLEAR Act is a comprehensive reform bill and an important step forward in improving our nation’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills,” including “provisions to increase safety, help restore the Gulf Coast, crackdown on ethical lapses, require businesses to be responsible for their actions, and close royalty loopholes to ensure the American people receive their fair share for the extraction of public resources.” The bill simply requires oil companies to obey the rules set by Congress to reduce the risks of drilling, and to cover the costs of spills they’re responsible for. Calling it a tax is disingenuous, and plain wrong.

To sum up, Mick Mulvaney opposes holding polluters accountable for global warming and holding BP responsible for the disaster in Gulf.

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

By Matt Howes

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday that “BP, the energy giant responsible for the largest offshore oil spill in history, helped develop [California’s] framework for teaching more than 6 million students about the environment.”

That’s right; the same people who brought you the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are helping to shape the education of millions of students. In fact, the environmental education curriculum will be used in “kindergarten through 12th-grade classes in more than 1,000 school districts statewide.”

The thought of BP – or any big oil company – playing a role in designing education on environmental issues makes me very nervous. In California, we’ve got Texas oil companies spending millions of dollars trying to kill our landmark clean energy and climate law. That’s bad enough; we certainly don’t need a British oil company writing our kids’ education materials.

Dollie Forney, a mother of three from San Jose said, “This is outrageous. Now our schools and officials are so cash-strapped and unimaginative and desperate we are allowing Big Oil to write our children’s curriculum? "

The fact is, over the years, BP has rightly earned the title of having “the worst safety and environmental record of any oil company operating in America.” Of course, that’s not much of an honor, especially when you consider how BP came by its miserable environmental reputation. This includes being slapped with “the two largest fines in OSHA history — $87.43 million and $21.36 million — for willful negligence that led to the deaths of 15 workers and injured 170 others in a March 2005 refinery explosion in Texas.” BP also “agreed to pay a $50 million fine and plead guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act, and was fined “a total of $21 million for manipulating the California electricity market, Enron-style.”

It’s not a pretty picture. All of which raises the question, why would anyone even think of giving this company a say in designing education materials on the environment, of all topics? As Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy says, “I’d hate to see how a section in future textbooks mentioning the BP oil spill will look.”

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the fourteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

After the Gold Rush, but before Hollywood and the Silicon Valley, California’s Central Valley became one of the most prosperous agricultural areas in the world. Recent water shortages have challenged this legacy; however, fruit, vegetable and particularly cotton, remain the driving force in the region’s economy. The Central Valley may be undergoing a demographic shift of late, but it’s not due to agriculture’s decline – it’s because high home prices in the Bay Area are driving middle-income workers to Tracy and Stockton. The 11th Congressional District, which includes much of this area as well as some Bay Area suburbs and areas further south, is historically conservative. And, while the region remains the most Republican part of the Bay Area that is not saying very much. Currently, Democrat Jerry McNerney represents the 11th district in the U.S. House.

Rep. McNerney came into office in 2006 after defeating arch anti-environment Republican Richard Pombo. At the time, Pombo was a seven-term incumbent with a daunting campaign war-chest, and the number one target of the environmental community. As chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, Pombo spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. In stark contrast, McNerney was a renewable energy consultant and entrepreneur who made clean energy the signature issue of his campaign. Environmental groups, like Defenders of Wildlife, campaigned fervently on McNerney’s behalf, and his election over Pombo remains one of our community’s signature victories of the past decade.

Not surprisingly given this background, McNerney has been a champion for the environment during his first two terms in Congress. According to the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) he has rarely missed an opportunity to take the environmental vote on key issues, scoring a 93% in the last session of Congress. In endorsing his current reelection bid, LCV President Gene Karpinski said that McNerney “has been an invaluable leader in championing clean energy jobs and protecting our natural treasures… As a wind energy engineer and father of an Air Force veteran, Congressman McNerney knows from experience how important clean energy is to our economy and our national security.”

Unlike Rep. McNerney, who voted in favor of the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) – the first climate bill to pass a chamber of Congress – his opponent this November, David Harmer, thinks, “global warming is more a religion than a science.” And in April, Harmer told a tea party rally, absurdly, that climate legislation would enable the government to regulate every time they exhale. With Harmer misrepresenting both the unassailable science of global warming and reasonable solutions like ACES, you have to wonder if he’d be another Pombo if he ever got to Congress.

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

By Matt Howes

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

It’s hard to think how a recent article in the Akron Beacon Journal could have left out any more relevant information. The Journal is a reputable paper, and so we were surprised by the article’s flaws.

The article, entitled "Hundreds rally against taxes on oil and natural gas," has several key omissions including:

• The article says that there were about 400 energy advocates, and that "Most arrived in four buses that delivered them from the Canton area. One arrived from Mount Vernon." What the article failed to mention, is that at least some of these buses were paid for by oil companies (or their front groups) and were filled with oil company staff. ThinkProgress has a great video clip about it here.

• The article mentions that "Karen Wright, president and chief executive of Ariel Corp., a manufacturer of natural gas compressors" spoke, but failed to mention that Karen Wright ridiculed climate change as "questionable science" and referred to pollutants as "so-called carbon dioxide emissions." Wright went on to rail against "so-called green jobs" that were "dubious" and "phony." Given that climate change is an established fact and the U.S. Conference of Mayors indicates there are thousands of currently existing ‘green’ jobs in Ohio, the article should have commented on the ignorance of a keynote speaker, instead of repeating her talking points. It also bears noting that clean energy reforms would bring between 35 thousand and 61 thousand jobs to Ohio.

• Although the article mentions the role of the American Petroleum Institute, it fails to mention their history of using misleading grassroots campaigns and the role of the Koch Brothers. Rachel Maddow has a great commentary about this situation here.

I’d encourage the Akron Beacon Journal to improve its reporting in the future.

Additional Reading:
Koch-Funded Oil Rally Calls Global Warming A ‘Hoax,’ Dismisses Oil Spill, And Attacks Democrats

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the twelfth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District covers the southern part of the state, including Little Texas (as the southeast is known), Hatch Valley and Las Cruces (the state’s 2nd largest city). The 2nd Congressional District is a diverse region, nearly 50% Hispanic, which relies on oil, mining and agriculture. Democrat Harry Teague, a former oil executive himself, has represented the district in the U.S. House since 2008. In November, Teague will face former Congressman Steve Pearce, who in 2008 left the House after three terms to run unsuccessfully for the Senate.

Energy and climate legislation is front and center in this race. In his campaign announcement, Pearce even cited Teague’s vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) – an extraordinarily important piece of environmental legislation, which the New York Times described as “the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change” – as triggering his decision to run. Pearce also claimed (falsely) that Teague “embraced a reckless set of policies that directly jeopardize our economy and threatens future generations.” Specifically, Pearce argued that ACES will “hit families with as much as $1,500 a year in higher energy costs,” and “destroy jobs in New Mexico’s clean energy sector.”

Since Pearce didn’t say where he got those numbers, it’s tough to address them directly, but independent analyses of ACES indicate that such claims are way off. For instance, the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office calculated the cost of ACES at $175 per household; and collaborative research by the by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California showed that ACES would create as many as 1.9 million new jobs over the next ten years.

Pearce’s anti-environmental streak is nothing new. During his previous stint in Congress, he earned an abysmal 3% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). In comparison, Teague received an 86% rating during his first year in Congress.

On global warming, Pearce believes that the science is “crap” (a direct quote), that “climate scientists should be questioned more thoroughly because of the stolen e-mails,” and that “[i]f they don’t believe it, why should the rest of us be penalized in our standard of living for something that can’t be validated?” In fact, there is overwhelming, “undeniable” evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only taking place, but is accelerating. As to the so-called “climategate,” this supposed “scandal” has been thoroughly refuted. Even if Steve Pearce doesn’t “believe” it has.

As if all this isn’t bad enough, Pearce stands with the radically conservative Americans for Prosperity in opposing climate legislation. As The New Yorker magazine explained in a recent expose, this industry front group was founded in 2004 by David Koch. David and his brother Charles, as you may know, are the nefarious, oil billionaires who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting their hard-line brand of libertarianism. In addition to eliminating all taxes, one of the Koch’s top priorities has been undermining environmental regulations. In fact, as The New Yorker points out, “from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change." The sad truth is that Steve Pearce is exactly the type of candidate the Koch’s would be proud to support.

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the eleventh article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

Today, we examine Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District, stretching from Des Moines to the Cedar Falls-Waterloo area. The district’s economy is heavily agricultural, but also has a large financial and insurance sector component, with Des Moines referred to as “the Hartford of the West” for that reason. Since 1997, Democrat Leonard Boswell has represented the 3rd congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. This year, Boswell is being challenged by Republican State Senator Brad Zaun.

So far in this campaign, Boswell has strongly defended his record and has attacked Zaun for “his opposition to Iowa’s biofuels industry, which employs thousands of farmers and factory workers in the state.” For his part, Zaun has attempted to tie Boswell to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama, while running a series entitled, “Fourteen Reasons Why We Need a New Congressman.”

On clean energy and environmental issues, Rep. Boswell has an excellent record. In 2009, for instance, Boswell received a near-perfect 93% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), as well as a 100% rating from Environment America. Boswell voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), an extraordinarily important piece of environmental legislation which the New York Times described as “the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change.” At the time of his vote for ACES, Boswell said that the legislation “would harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process.” Boswell added that “[e]nergy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious challenge of climate change.”

For his part, Brad Zaun received a mediocre rating of 42% on the environment from the Iowa Sierra Club in 2009-2010. In this video, Zaun declares, “I question global warming” and claims – incorrectly – that ACES will “cost businesses and all of us that have homes millions of dollars.” In addition, Zaun claims that coal-fired power is far more economical than wind power (certainly not true if you count environmental and other “externalities”), brags that he’s being “compared to this one lady that says ‘drill, baby, drill,’” and argues that “we need to take advantage of our resources.” On his website under “Energy and Natural Resources,” Zaun argues that America “must increase domestic oil and gas supply by exploring and utilizing more of the energy resources we have at home.” Message to Brad Zaun: we saw the results of that approach in the Gulf of Mexico this past summer!

On the other hand, Zaun has not joined most of his fellow Republican candidates this year and signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax Pledge.” Zaun also advocates “exploring alternative sources of energy…including nuclear, wind, solar and other alternative energies.” And, Zaun says, “We must be careful stewards of all of our precious natural resources by always avoiding strategies which unnecessarily damage our landscape or environment or pose health risks to our citizens.” That’s all well and good. But advocating for coal-fired power, “drill, baby, drill,” and global warming skepticism is a very funny way to accomplish those goals.

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the tenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

Today, we examine Florida’s 24th Congressional District, on the east coast of Florida and covering portions of Brevard (including Titusville), Orange, Seminole and Volusia counties. With Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center, this area is known as the “Space Coast,” and Titusville is nicknamed “Space City, USA.” Since January 2009, the 24th congressional district has been represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Democrat Suzanne Kosmas. This year, Rep. Kosmas is being challenged by State Representative Sandy Adams, who won a narrow, upset victory in the Republican primary in August over former Winter Park City Commissioner Karen Diebel and former Ruth’s Chris Steak House CEO Craig Miller.

So far in this campaign, Kosmas has stressed her work in Congress is “to bring real, common-sense solutions to Central Florida, including extending the life of the Space Shuttle, funding the new Orlando VA Medical Center and cutting taxes for small businesses.” For her part, Adams has argued that “record spending” and “debt are enslaving our children and grandchildren.” Adams also has asserted that “[l]iberal special interests, hostile to American traditions, are systematically stripping our country of the ideals that make us exceptional.”

On clean energy and environmental issues, Rep. Kosmas has a superb voting record. In 2009, for instance, Kosmas received a perfect, 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and an 83% rating from Environment America. Kosmas voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) , an extraordinarily important piece of environmental legislation which the New York Times described as “the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change.” In April 2010, the LCV Action Fund endorsed Kosmas for reelection, stating that during her first term in office, “Representative Kosmas has quickly become a champion of legislation to create jobs and make America a leader in building the 21st century clean energy economy.”

In contrast, in 2008, the Florida LCV gave Sandy Adams a 39.3 rating on environmental issues. Even worse, Adams has signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax Pledge” to “oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.” Along these same lines, in early 2010, Adams sponsored a successful Florida House measure, urging Congress not to pass “cap and trade” legislation. Also, in this video from July 2010, Adams said that “cap and trade” really was “truly cap and tax” and vowed, “we have got to stand up…and fight to get our Congress back.” In reality, of course, a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill would create a lot of jobs and cost households very little, so Sandy Adams is simply wrong when she disparages “cap and trade” as being nothing more than a new “tax.” Also, it’s pretty bold for Sandy Adams to be strongly against taking climate action, given that she wants to represent a district that could be partially underwater – at least if you believe the scientists – by the end of the century. Perhaps she might want to reconsider her stance on this issue?

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

This is the sixth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

Today, we examine Ohio’s 15th Congressional District, which includes downtown Columbus and parts of neighboring Franklin, Madison and Union counties. Columbus is home to the Ohio State University and has the highest proportion of young professionals, aged 25-34, of any city in the country. In 2008, Mary Jo Kilroy became the first Democrat elected in the district since 1982, when she narrowly (by less than 2,500 votes) defeated Republican Steve Stivers. Kilroy and Stivers will be matched up again this fall.

Since coming to Washington, Rep. Kilroy has consistently voted for environmental protections and moving America to a clean energy economy. In her first year in the House, she received a perfect 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, which means she voted the right way on every environmental vote. This includes voting for the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first climate bill to ever pass in a chamber of Congress. In a statement following the vote, Kilroy said “The clean energy economy is the future of our country and of central Ohio…We are seeing the consequences of not investing in the next big idea with our auto industry. [ACES] secures Ohio’s strong position to make the solar panels and wind turbines that will power our nation in the very near future. It will also benefit Ohio’s agricultural sector, which can provide the plant material needed for the bio mass products that boost energy production.” She added, “This bill puts the central consumers first and insulates them from shifts in prices. For less than a trip to the movie theater, Americans are going to create 1.7 million (jobs), end the stranglehold foreign countries have on energy and work to save our planet.”

In sharp contrast, Steve Stivers falsely calls cap and trade a “job killer” that will lead to higher electricity bills for Ohio families. In reality, strong clean energy and climate legislation would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to in-depth study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California. In Ohio, this would mean 61,000 new, good-paying jobs created over the next ten years. And, as analysis by the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows, the effect of ACES on electricity bills will be, as Rep. Kilroy said, less than going to the movies once a month.

Stivers doesn’t just stop at opposing clean energy and climate legislation, he also “disagree[s]” with the statement, “Man-made global warming is a scientific fact and immediate action to lower CO2 emissions is necessary to prevent an environmental catastrophe.” And, if denying the unassailable science behind climate change wasn’t enough, Stivers also opposes our right to hold the government accountable in court for protecting our public health and environment.

Stivers’ strong anti-environmental views are not so surprising when you consider the sources of his campaign cash, such as oil and coal services giant Koch Industries, Murray Energy and Rep. Joe Barton’s Texas Freedom PAC. What’s wrong with these companies and PACs?

Koch Industries is privately owned by Charles and David Koch, who, according to Greenpeace, have “quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming.” Robert Murray, the head of Murray Energy, is an outspoken climate denier, who said in testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee that global warming is “one of the biggest con jobs in the history of the Republic.” Murray continued to criticize the legacy of Rachel Carson, saying that “She and her environmental followers killed millions of human beings around the World with the ban on DDT.” Murray concluded by claiming that climate change legislation will “result in no environmental benefit.” Finally, the Texas Freedom PAC is headed by Joe Barton, who infamously apologized to BP, and who also called the BP escrow fund that will pay businesses that lost money because of the Gulf disaster a “$20 billion shakedown.”

These are a few of Stivers’ big donors, all major polluters or supporters of major polluters, which makes you wonder what they think they’re getting for their large donations to the Steve Stivers for Congress campaign.

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.