Big Climate's Spending on This Election? $85,000,000!
That's right, $85 million!
According to the Wall Street Journal today:
On Monday, The Hill reported that an internal memo circulating among five environmental groups detailed plans for spending to support candidates “who want to act” to combat climate change. “We are on track to spend more than $85 million overall including more than $40 million in just six Senate races,” the memo said. The beneficiaries include Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.), who got $12.1 million, and Rep. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa) with $7.2 million.
Earlier this week, I talked about the ludicrous claim that global warming chicken littles had to fight a "campaign of doubt mongering." By far, the big money is on the catastrophic global warming side.
ADDITION: Not to mention, $1,700,000,000,000 ($1.7 trillion) on 'green' energy which has not added (net) to world energy production! Details here. Of course, this is why the $85 million is being spent -- to get government to mandate purchase of inefficient energy that would no rational person would otherwise buy.
According to the Wall Street Journal today:
On Monday, The Hill reported that an internal memo circulating among five environmental groups detailed plans for spending to support candidates “who want to act” to combat climate change. “We are on track to spend more than $85 million overall including more than $40 million in just six Senate races,” the memo said. The beneficiaries include Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.), who got $12.1 million, and Rep. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa) with $7.2 million.
Earlier this week, I talked about the ludicrous claim that global warming chicken littles had to fight a "campaign of doubt mongering." By far, the big money is on the catastrophic global warming side.
ADDITION: Not to mention, $1,700,000,000,000 ($1.7 trillion) on 'green' energy which has not added (net) to world energy production! Details here. Of course, this is why the $85 million is being spent -- to get government to mandate purchase of inefficient energy that would no rational person would otherwise buy.
Comments
Post a Comment