IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v149y2018i3d10.1007_s10584-018-2241-z.html

The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016

Author

Listed:
  • Robert J. Brulle

    (Drexel University)

Abstract

Lobbying is considered to be an important factor in the success or failure of climate change legislation. This paper provides an estimate of lobbying expenditures related to climate change legislation in the U.S. Congress from 2000 to 2016. During this time period, over $2 billion was spent on this activity, constituting 3.9% of total lobbying expenditures. Major sectors involved in lobbying were fossil fuel and transportation corporations, utilities, and affiliated trade associations. Expenditures by these sectors dwarf those of environmental organizations and renewable energy corporations. Levels of expenditures on lobbying appear to be related to the introduction and probability of passage of significant climate legislation. Future research should focus on tying particular positions on climate legislation and lobbying expenditures at the corporate level.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert J. Brulle, 2018. "The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 289-303, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:149:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2241-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Brulle, 2014. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 681-694, February.
    2. Robert Brulle & Jason Carmichael & J. Jenkins, 2012. "Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 169-188, September.
    3. Kim, Sung Eun & Urpelainen, Johannes & Yang, Joonseok, 2016. "Electric utilities and American climate policy: lobbying by expected winners and losers," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 251-275, June.
    4. Grumbach, Jacob M., 2015. "Polluting industries as climate protagonists: cap and trade and the problem of business preferences," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 633-659, December.
    5. Elizabeth Shove, 2010. "Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(6), pages 1273-1285, June.
    6. Downie, Christian, 2017. "Business actors, political resistance, and strategies for policymakers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 583-592.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maxwell Boykoff, 2024. "Climate change countermovements and adaptive strategies: insights from Heartland Institute annual conferences a decade apart," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Jeremiah Bohr, 2017. "Is it hot in here or is it just me? Temperature anomalies and political polarization over global warming in the American public," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 271-285, May.
    3. Lackner, Teresa & Fierro, Luca E. & Mellacher, Patrick, 2025. "Opinion dynamics meet agent-based climate economics: An integrated analysis of carbon taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    4. Salil Benegal & Jon Green, 2024. "Cost sensitivity, partisan cues, and support for the Green New Deal," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(4), pages 763-775, December.
    5. Saatvika Rai, 2020. "Policy Adoption and Policy Intensity: Emergence of Climate Adaptation Planning in U.S. States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 444-463, July.
    6. Sugandha Srivastav & Ryan Rafaty, 2023. "Political Strategies to Overcome Climate Policy Obstructionism," Papers 2304.14960, arXiv.org.
    7. Srivastav, Sugandha & Rafaty, Ryan, 2021. "Five Worlds of Political Strategy in the Climate Movement," INET Oxford Working Papers 2021-07, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    8. Samuel Pearson & Matthew J. Hornsey & Saphira Rekker & Belinda Wade & Chris Greig, 2024. "Publicly expressed climate scepticism is greatest in regions with high CO2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(5), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Robert Brulle & Christian Downie, 2022. "Following the money: trade associations, political activity and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Jared Cory & Michael Lerner & Iain Osgood, 2021. "Supply Chain Linkages and the Extended Carbon Coalition," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 69-87, January.
    11. Møller, Karl Magnus, 2024. "Domestic renewable energy industries and national decarbonization policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    12. Joshua A. Basseches & Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & Maxwell T. Boykoff & Trevor Culhane & Galen Hall & Noel Healy & David J. Hess & David Hsu & Rachel M. Krause & Harland Prechel & J. Timmons Roberts & J, 2022. "Climate policy conflict in the U.S. states: a critical review and way forward," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-24, February.
    13. Shaw, Christopher & Hurth, Victoria & Capstick, Stuart & Cox, Emily, 2018. "Intermediaries’ perspectives on the public’s role in the energy transitions needed to deliver UK climate change policy goals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 267-276.
    14. Timo Busch & Lena Judick, 2021. "Climate change—that is not real! A comparative analysis of climate-sceptic think tanks in the USA and Germany," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-23, January.
    15. Sarah P. Church & Belyna Bentlage & Roberta Weiner & Nicholas Babin & Brian R. Bulla & Katelyn Fagan & Tonya Haigh & J. Stuart Carlton & Linda S. Prokopy, 2020. "National print media vs. agricultural trade publications: communicating the 2012 Midwestern US drought," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 43-63, July.
    16. repec:osf:osfxxx:rdfze_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Burchell, Kevin & Rettie, Ruth & Roberts, Tom C., 2016. "Householder engagement with energy consumption feedback: the role of community action and communications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 178-186.
    18. Gupta, Kuhika & Nowlin, Matthew C. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2019. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    19. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    20. Edmond Daramy-Williams & Jillian Anable & Susan Grant-Muller, 2019. "Car Use: Intentional, Habitual, or Both? Insights from Anscombe and the Mobility Biography Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    21. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:149:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2241-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.