Comments on: EPA Gives Millions to Green Groups That Sue It; Massive Funding Advantage for Enviro Groups and Green Welfare

By: Green millions | Proxycommalpha

Green millions | Proxycommalpha — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:14:17 +0000

[...] EPA Gives Millions to Green Groups That Sue It; Massive Funding …Jul 10, 2011 … The EPA gives millions to the environmental groups that sue it. When the EPA settles or loses those suits, it then awards the groups … [...]

By: Obama Administration Funds Special-Interest Groups, Wipes Out Jobs, Refuses to Cut Wasteful Spending

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:13:00 +0000

[...] it, it gives them millions more in attorneys fees — even when such fees would appear to be barred by provisions in the Equal Access to Justice Act. This includes millions to groups that have sued it [...]

By: Federal Court Ruling Evidences Runaway Regulatory Chain Reaction | Women's Team CO2 Footprint Project

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:48:16 +0000

[...] This ruling puts the Obama administration in a pickle. In December 2010, the EPA found that greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles “endanger” human health and welfare. This was the first link of the regulatory chain reaction I noted in the opening paragraph of this post. How can the Obama administration reasonably assert that greenhouse gases from cars “endanger” human health, but the same doesn’t hold true for emissions from airplanes? If the EPA finds that aircraft greenhouse gas emissions “endanger” public health (as it seems it must), then regulation is compulsory. Then again, perhaps the Court’s ruling is precisely what the administration had hoped for. [...]

By: Federal Court Ruling Evidences Runaway Regulatory Chain Reaction

Federal Court Ruling Evidences Runaway Regulatory Chain Reaction — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:26:30 +0000

[...] Federal Court Ruling Evidences Runaway Regulatory Chain ReactionHouse Committee Opens New Front in Fuel Economy BattleCross-State Air Pollution Rule: Latest Salvo in President’s War on CoalNew Study Finds Return to Pre-Moratorium Permitting Rate in Gulf Would Create 430,000 Jobs by 2013In Anti-Spending Climate, DOE Gives $4.5 Billion in Taxpayer Backed Guarantees to Solar ManufacturerEPA Gives Millions to Green Groups That Sue It; Massive Funding Advantage for Enviro Groups and Gree… [...]

By: Marlo Lewis

Marlo Lewis — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:52:02 +0000

Eco-pressure groups spent an estimated $100 million in the last Congress alone in a failed attempt to bring even one R in the Senate over to the pr0-cap-and-trade camp (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40132.html). Corporate rent-seekers also spent big bucks lobbying for cap-and-trade and funding pro-cap-and-trade candidates (http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/climate-politicdebate-when-will-the-sanctimony-end/). Last, but certainly not least, the U.N. (think of all those IPCC reports and international climate conferences), scores of environmental agencies, and hundreds of taxpayer-funded academics have been promoting cap-and-trade for more than a decade. Total cap-and-trade advocacy efforts easily exceed a billion dollars.

By: On the EPA using your funds to get itself sued to act against your intersets | JunkScience Sidebar

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:55:28 +0000

[...] EPA Gives Millions to Green Groups That Sue It; Massive Funding Advantage for Enviro Groups and Gree… by HANS BADER on JULY 10, 2011 [...]

By: Occasional Reader

Occasional Reader — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 04:08:05 +0000

Supporters of the cap-and-trade bill vastly outspent the bill’s opponents.

Environmentalists and advocates of restrictions on greenhouse gases typically outspend their adversaries in lobbying, elections, and advertising.

That was certainly true in the recent Congressional battle over cap-and-trade.

It was also true in the battle over California’s Proposition 23, which challenged the state’s global-warming mandates. Environmentalists and other opponents of Proposition 23 outspent its supporters, as even the New York Times admitted:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/foes-outspend-backers-of-proposition-23/

By: Alan Burke

Alan Burke — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:51:44 +0000

Sal your reply to claimed that my comment was deeply misleading. I did not claim that it was an a co-author who withdrew. I suggest that you review the original and updated PDF versions of the report and note that Robert Brulle, one of 5 invited to review the original embargoed document wrote to Mathew Nisbet with objections to changes made after the review to request that he be removed from the list of reviewers.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/18/207892/climate-shift-matthew-nisbet/

Original: “Robert Brulle, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology at Drexel University. His research focuses on environmental politics and the role of social movements in the creation of environmental policies. He is the author of Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective (MIT Press, 2000) as well as numerous peer-reviewed studies in this area. His current work funded by the National Science Foundation examines the interactions between environmental groups, foundations and government institutions over the last 100 years.”
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ClimateShift_report_FINAL.pdf

Updated:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ClimateShift_Report_AmericanUniversity-UPDATED.pdf

By: Sal

Sal — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:08:06 +0000

The American University study’s conclusions are consistent with a series of prior studies by other academics similarly finding that environmentalist organizations outspend the other side by a considerable multiple.

Environmentalist organizations take in and spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the political process. Corporations spend less than that by far in opposing environmental regulation.

Alan Burke’s comment above is deeply misleading. None of the American University report’s co-authors distanced himself from the study. It was a “reviewer” who did so. There is nothing extraordinary about a paid reviewer having a different take than a study’s author.

The AU study is correct, and its conclusions are not a surprise to anyone who has studied this area.

By: Alan Burke

Alan Burke — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:52:16 +0000

You stated “For example, an American University study found that supporters of the cap-and-trade bill aimed at global warming had a massive financial edge over their critics.”, citing my website http://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/in-cap-and-trade-fight-environmentalists-had-spending-edge-over-opponents-new-report-finds/

I trust that readers will read the follow-on refutation comment beginning:

“Bombshell exclusive: Leading expert withdraws name from Climate Shift report, explains how key conclusion that environmentalists weren’t outspent by opponents of climate bill “is contradicted by Nisbet’s own data”

Nisbet’s data actually shows enviros were far outspent, especially where it mattered most: Lobbying, advertising, and election spending.

Prof. Matthew Nisbet of American University has written an error-riddled, self-contradictory, demonstrable false report, Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate. The 99-page report’s two central, but ridiculous, claims are:

- The environmental movement outspent opponents during the climate bill debate.

- Media coverage of climate change has become balanced and was not a factor in the defeat of the cap-and-trade bill. …

None of the report’s major conclusions can stand the light of day, particularly those two. Climate Shift is not a revisionist history. It is a counterfactual history. …

More … http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/18/climate-shift-mathew-nisbet/