Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

House Republicans Voted Against The Environment More Than 300 Times Since 2011

Posted on  

"House Republicans Voted Against The Environment More Than 300 Times Since 2011"

Share:

google plus icon

The House of Representatives added to its historic tally of anti-environment votes with a 245 to 161 vote on Friday approving the GOP’s “No More Solyndras Act” — a messaging bill that hampers Department of Energy loan guarantees to clean energy projects.

Under GOP leadership, the House has voted 302 times against the environment since 2011, according to the latest report from House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats. More than one hundred of these votes have favored profits in the oil and gas industry. Since June, the House has added 55 votes and counting to this list, amounting to more than one vote for every day it has been in session.

Here is a breakdown of some of Republicans’ votes against clean energy and in favor of oil:

– 133 votes targeting the Environmental Protection Agency
– 54 target the Department of Energy
– 128 block measures preventing pollution
– 55 to defund or repeal clean energy initaitives
– 47 votes to promote offshore drilling

The latest vote today had little to do with Solyndra, and even less to do with smart investments in clean energy. After spending $1 million of taxpayer money, holding 12 hearings, and 300,000 pages of documents, House Republicans have found “no evidence” of wrongdoing. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) has admitted the ploy is political, and would likely stop on election day.

As the House’s anti-environment record grows, oil, gas and coal’s political spending has reached record levels. In addition to the $153 million in TV ads from fossil fuel groups this election, oil, gas and coal have contributed 88 percent of its $45 million to Republican candidates. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the coal mining and oil and gas industries have contributed 89-90 percent of their $12.6 million donations to House Republicans.

Check out the full database of anti-environmental votes here.

Tags:

« »

19 Responses to House Republicans Voted Against The Environment More Than 300 Times Since 2011

  1. Henry says:

    Isn’t this what’s known as “Checks and Balances” in government?

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      In Australia we spell it ‘cheques’. Electronic transfer to an offshore account is more convenient.

    • Ozonator says:

      They just want to prove over and over again that crime doesn’t pay — their victims.

    • Yvette says:

      I’d say it’s been ‘checks’ with no balance. It’s been, Let’s put all sanity in-check and go nuts; It’s let’s ‘check’ the democrats; it’s let’s ‘check’ on what the envrionmental protection side is doing and undo it or make sure it never gets done.

      Checks NO Balance

  2. Pennsylvania Bob says:

    This is great information to have, as horrible as it is. But it would be even more helpful if we could sort by each Representative….simply enter in the name of our Congress-critter and see all of his or her votes cross-referenced with each of these bills and resolutions. Does anyone know if such a website or database exists?

  3. Chris says:

    But you’re ignoring all the times the Republicans voted for the environment. Just curious have they voted for a positive environmental regulation? (sound of crickets)

  4. facts lean left says:

    They have voted against America and Americans far more times.

  5. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Rightwing hated of environmentalism, which, in the Anglosphere, is growing into a real pogrom against environmental law and a virulent demonisation campaign against Greens, is firmly rooted in the Rightwing pathopsychology. Certainly they hate anyone who gets in the way of their making money, and the thousands of environmentalists murdered or ‘disappeared’ in the poor world shows where this hatred inevitably leads.Moreover, at the psychological level, they cannot abide anyone who puts life before money, the physical manifestation of lifelessness ground out from living stuff. Money is theoretically infinite, as is Rightwing greed, but life on this planet is finite. The clash between the two is the battle between Life and Death that rages in every human psyche, and every Rightist, somewhere along his path, chooses Death. The Right are choosing to actively pursue death for our civilization and species, a deeply unpleasant fact that we must all face.

    • Rabid Doomsayer says:

      Little do they realise that money will have no meaning when life is gone. Just bits of paper blowing in the wind, forgotten bytes on long rotten hard drives, mounds of gold that no one wants.

      They want it all, they will get it all and it will be all of nothing.

      Out of the garden of Eden they create a wasteland, and call it progress.

      If by some miracle we survive what is ahead, we will not be going back to the days of the caveman. The survivors will envy the caveman, who had a fully functioning biosphere to live off.

  6. Earth Citizen says:

    @Mulga: Well said.

    I would add to this that anyone who tries to say how some of the right wing are “Pro-Life” should keep in mind the difference between “Pro-Birth” and being truly pro-life, which should include all life in the biosphere, upon which we depend for our own survival.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Dear Earth, as you note, the Right are not ‘pro-life’. They despise various types of living human beings once born with virulence. They are ‘ánti-choice’, that is against women’s autonomy, as they have been ever since women were enclosed and the Mother Earth Goddesses overthrown by the Patriarchal Ego-Projection in the Sky.

  7. “”We weren’t always successful……but no one ever is in the real world of business.

    That’s what this President doesn’t seem to understand. Business and growing jobs is about taking risk, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding, but always striving. It is about dreams. Usually, it doesn’t work out exactly as you might have imagined.”

    Mitt Romney accepting the GOP Presidential nomination.

    Of course the Dems wanted a cap and trade system – let the market pick the winners. But the GOP killed it so they were left to pick winners, and they weren’t “always successful” – but had a much better hit rate than Bain.

  8. sailrick says:

    can this be clarified a little? the phrasing makes a little ambiguous, to me.

    “oil, gas and coal have contributed 88 percent of its $45 million to Republican candidates”

    I’m not sure of the exact meaning.

  9. Ozonator says:

    Will the Senate deniers be showcased in a separate spittoon? It shouldn’t matter. These days, the GOP failures want to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and international sex (e.g. dancing) tour guide to all the extremist media outfall staff.

    For example, “For the third time, Sen. David Vitter has been included on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics’ annual “Most Corrupt Members of Congress” list. “The morally and ethically bankrupt senator attempted to bribe the Secretary of the Interior and pledged to continue the practice despite new guidance from the Senate Ethics Committee … has solicited prostitutes, employed a known criminal … ” says CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan. ” … What will it take for the Senate Ethics Committee to hold Sen. Vitter responsible …?” Vitter is the only Louisiana representative on this year’s list …The publication of the list comes just two days before the Republican Party of East Baton Rouge Parish will honor Vitter as its Man of the Year at the Ronald Reagan Awards Brunch in Baton Rouge” (“Vitter makes annual list of most corrupt members of Congress”; businessreport.com, 9/12/12).

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Surely being ‘solicitous’ towards ‘horizontal folk-dancing’ facilitators is a lesser crime than most?

  10. Mark Ziegler says:

    At least we know they have a few things in common.

    Cybersleauth

  11. Bob Phillips says:

    Yeah, that’s all well and good, but what about the number of times they’ve discussed and/or voted on the Jobs Bill they were given more than a year ago?

    Oh? They never did?

    Perhaps they WERE a tad busy voting to repeal the ACA ( Obamacare.) THIRTY-FOUR times over the past 18 months.

    THAT must be it.