I’m cross-posting this from DeSmogBlog, which I believe is taken with some authoritativeness here.
[If it’s a crackpot site, please let me know, and I’ll delete].
In speeches and press conferences, and occasionally in policy, the Democratic Party in the United States has always claimed the high ground on the issue of climate change and the need to move the country off oil, gas and coal towards renewable energy. As a result, the fossil fuel industry has heavily backed Republican politicians for decades.
But the 2016 U.S. Presidential election has once again proven unique by every measure. A new report by The Wall Street Journal shows that Democratic nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pulling in far more money from the fossil fuel industry than her Republican opponent Donald Trump.
The report shows that, through July, Hillary Clinton has received almost three times as much campaign cash from fossil fuel employees than Trump, to the tune of about $525,000 compared to Trump’s $149,000. Her joint account with the Democratic National Committee has also received an additional $650,000 from fossil fuel executives and employees.
...
After all, unlike Clinton, Trump still claims that climate change is a hoax, and he has made it clear that drilling and fracking and coal extraction will be increased under a Trump administration.
So if her opponent is friendlier to the fossil fuel industry, why the sudden shift from GOP to Democrats in campaign spending?
...
Still, this move to the Democratic presidential nominee is unprecedented, as The Hill points out:
Since 1989, about 60 percent of the $500 million the industry spent on U.S. elections has gone to the GOP and its candidates, according to the CRP data provided to the Journal.
...
So if the industry is certain of a Clinton victory — if that is the reason they are favoring her — then they must also feel certain that the Republican Party will retain control of both the House and Senate, since that’s where their money is going.
...
If this trend holds, then America can expect a future dominated by further fossil fuel pollution of our democracy, health and the climate.
Not good news.
Counter-arguments, please?