Logo for InfluenceWatch InfluenceWatch

Donate
Movement

Opposition to Nuclear Energy

Contact InfluenceWatch with suggested edits or tips for additional profiles.

There are more than 700 nonprofits and other advocacy groups in the United States that oppose the use of carbon free nuclear energy. 1  2  3 An August 2023 analysis from the Capital Research Center examined fewer than 200 nonprofits that opposed nuclear energy and conservatively estimated that the total combined annual revenue of the American opponents of nuclear power exceeded $2.3 billion. 4

Some of the largest nonprofits opposing nuclear energy, as measured by the revenue reported in their 2020 and 2021 filings with the IRS, included the World Wildlife Fund, 5 the World Resources Institute (WRI), 6 the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 7 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 8 the Sierra Club, 9 the Rocky Mountain Institute, 10 and the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). 11 Some of the largest known contributors to the anti-nuclear-energy groups have included Bloomberg Philanthropies, 12 the Foundation for the Carolinas (FFTC) / Fred Stanback, 13  14  15 the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 16 the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation 17 the Sixteen Thirty Fund (1630 Fund) / Arabella Advisors 18 and the Tides Foundation. 19

Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and from 1990 until 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. 20 An October 2018 proposal from The Nature Conservancy noted that zero-carbon nuclear plants produced 7.8 percent of total world energy output and recommended reducing carbon emissions by increasing nuclear capacity to 33 percent of total world energy output. 21 A 2020 analysis from Our World in Data reported that nuclear energy “results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas,” making it “just as safe” as wind and solar power production. 22 The U.S. Department of Energy has concluded that “nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source” and that it would require “more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines.” 23

Background on U.S. Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and from 1990 until 2021 accounted for 20 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. 24 An October 2018 proposal from The Nature Conservancy noted that zero-carbon nuclear plants produced 7.8 percent of total world energy output and recommended reducing carbon emissions by increasing nuclear capacity to 33 percent of total world energy output. 25 France obtained 63 percent of its electricity from nuclear fuel in 2022, and an average of more than 75 percent of French electricity came from nuclear during the period from 1989 through 2016. 26

A March 2021 analysis posted on the U.S. Department of Energy’s web page concluded that “nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.” 27

“To put that in perspective,” claimed the Department of Energy report, “you would need more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines (capacity factor not included).” 28

An April 2021 analysis from Bloomberg News estimated that a “conventional 1-gigawatt reactor operating on 1,000 acres produces the same amount of energy as a wind farm spanning 100,000 acres.” Land use of 1,000 acres is equivalent to 1.56 square miles, while 100,000 acres is equal to 156 square miles, or 18 square miles larger than the land area within the city borders of Detroit, Michigan. 29  30

A 2020 analysis from Our World in Data reported that nuclear energy “results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas,” making it “just as safe” as wind and solar power production. 31

Uranium is currently the most widely used fuel in nuclear reactors. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, it “a common metal found in rocks all over the world.” 32

A 2009 analysis of nuclear fuel supplies posted by Scientific American estimated that the “economically accessible uranium resources” known to the U.S. Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) at that time would have been enough to run all of the nuclear reactors on Earth for “more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.” The report also predicted that “exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.” 33

“Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself,” concluded the Scientific American analysis. “Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs [light water nuclear reactors]. Breeder reactors could match today’s nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.” 34

A 2021 U.S. Department of Energy tutorial on nuclear power production reported that nuclear energy “produces minimal waste” and that all of the spent nuclear fuel “produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!” The tutorial also noted that nuclear waste “can also be reprocessed and recycled, although the United States does not currently do this” and that “some advanced reactors designs being developed could operate on used fuel.” 35

Group Petitions Against Nuclear Energy

Nonprofits and other groups opposed to the use of nuclear energy have jointly endorsed open letters and other statements expressing their position.

Opposition to EU defining nuclear as sustainable energy (2021)

A proposal by the European Commission to allow nuclear energy to count as a “sustainable” energy option within its “net zero” goals was opposed by both the World Wildlife Fund and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

In April 2021 WWF registered its opposition to a final draft of proposed rules regarding what the European Union would consider “green taxonomy” energy investments. The World Wildlife Fund statement declared that “fossil fuels and nuclear power are unsustainable” and that the final rules needed “to make clear that gas and nuclear will not be part of the green taxonomy once and for all.” 36

In July 2022, CDP issued a news release that opposed a decision by the parliament of the European Union to allow nuclear energy to be counted as acceptable within the EU’s net-zero carbon emissions taxonomy. The CDP news release said the EU decision “risks the integrity of the EU’s sustainable finance action plan, its obligations under the Paris Agreement and will severely hinder Europe’s efforts to adhere to its own European Climate Law, which sets a legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” 37

Petition for Renewable Energy Standard (May 2021)

In May of 2021, 715 groups and businesses cosigned on a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate that referred to nuclear energy as a “dirty” form of energy production and a “significant” source of pollution. The letter asked federal lawmakers to reduce carbon emissions by creating a “renewable electricity standard” that promoted production of weather dependent power sources such as wind turbines and solar panels. 38

Some examples of the co-signers included representatives from the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Oil Change International, the Center for Popular Democracy, the Environmental Working Group, the NAACP, Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, 350.org (plus many state and local affiliates such as 350 Philadelphia), Free Press Action and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. 39

American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020 (November 2020)

More than 100 co-signatories endorsed a November 2020 letter to the U.S. Senate that expressed opposition to S. 4897, the “American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020.” The letter stated that nuclear power “amplifies and expands the dangers of climate change” and denounced it as an example of “false solutions to the climate crisis that perpetuate our reliance on dirty energy industries.” 40

Some examples of the co-signers included representatives from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, Beyond Extreme Energy, the Institute for Policy Studies, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch, and Clean Water Action. 41

Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change (January 2019)

More than 600 co-signing organizations endorsed a January 2019 open letter to Congress titled “Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change.” The signatories declared their support for new laws to bring about “100 percent decarbonization” of the transportation sector but denounced nuclear power as an example of “dirty energy” that should not be included in any legislation promoting the use of so-called “renewable energy.” 42

Some examples of the co-signers included representatives from the League of Women Voters, CODEPINK, CREDO, Extinction Rebellion (XR), GRID Alternatives, Hip Hop Caucus, Rainforest Action Network, Sunrise Movement, and Surfrider Foundation. 43

Largest Anti-Nuclear Nonprofits

An August 2023 analysis from the Capital Research Center estimated the minimum total annual revenue of American nonprofits opposing nuclear energy to be in excess of $2.3 billion. 44

The report was based on conservative assumptions. Where a group had two legally distinct advocacy and educational nonprofits (e.g., the League of Conservation Voters and the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund), the estimate counted only one group, and never both. Similarly, when a prominent national group was allied with multiple legally-distinct state and local affiliates (e.g., the Michigan League of Conservation Voters) the state and local revenue was not counted toward the $2.3 billion total. In addition, all grants made by the six largest revenue nonprofits were excluded from the total, regardless of whether or not the grants were made to other nonprofits with known positions against the use of nuclear energy. 45

The Capital Research Center analysis tabulated the total revenue from 166 nonprofits, as measured by their most recently available IRS 990 filings when the calculation was made in August 2023. 46

There are eleven nonprofits listed in InfluenceWatch with known positions against nuclear energy that filed IRS 990 forms for 2020 or 2021 that showed annual revenue in excess of $50 million.

World Wildlife Fund

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reported total revenue of $381,636,162 for the year ending June 2022. 47

In April 2021, the WWF registered its opposition to a final draft of proposed rules regarding what the European Union would consider “green taxonomy” energy investments. The World Wildlife Fund statement declared that “fossil fuels and nuclear power are unsustainable” and that the final rules needed “to make clear that gas and nuclear will not be part of the green taxonomy once and for all.” In March 2020, as recommendations were being made regarding the final draft, the WWF praised recommendations provided to the EU that “would rightfully put an end to polluting fossil fuels, nuclear and bioenergy being greenwashed.” 48 49

World Resources Institute (WRI)

The World Resources Institute (WRI) reported total revenue of $289,669,226 for the year ending September 2021. 50

In 2018, WRI hosted an awards ceremony honoring two activists credited with blocking the construction of a nuclear power plant in South Africa. A WRI news release praised the pair for a “victory that protected South Africa from an unprecedented expansion of the nuclear industry. . .” 51

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) reported total revenue of $284,762,302 for the year ending September 2022. 52

In 2017 EDF advocated for the shutdown of a nuclear energy plant in New York. In 2016 EDF promoted the shutdown of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. Environmental Progress has accused EDF of “hypocrisy” because EDF advocated for taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar energy but opposed similar assistance for nuclear energy. 53 54 55

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reported total revenue of $186,185,838 for the year ending June 2022. 56

NRDC has repeatedly supported the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Environmental Progress accused NRDC of “hypocrisy” because NRDC advocated for taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar energy but opposed similar assistance for nuclear energy. 57

In a June 2021 blog post, NRDC senior scientist Mohit Chhabra stated his organization had “been working for years to retire the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant” in California. During 2017 and 2018 NRDC staffers also argued for shutting down nuclear energy facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 58 59 60

In April 2021, the NRDC celebrated the closing of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York. NRDC claimed that New York’s renewable energy sources would be able to make up for the loss of power provided by Indian Point with solar and wind energy. Afterward, the New York Times reported that more fossil fuels were burned in New York to make up for the closure of Indian Point and that Indian Point had been producing more power than all of the wind turbines and solar panels in New York combined. 61 62

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club reported total revenue of $152,093,074 for the year ending December 2021. 63

The Sierra Club website has stated that nuclear power is “a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity” and that the “Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.” The statement invited opponents of nuclear energy to join the Sierra Club’s Nuclear Free Campaign Grassroots Network, and redirected to a website for the Network. 64 65

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)

The Rocky Mountain Institute reported total revenue of $116,983,377 for the year ending June 2022. 66

In a 2011 report for RMI, the group’s founder, Amory Lovins, asserted that nuclear power is “costly and dangerous and a poor alternative to renewable energy sources.” Lovins reiterated his criticisms of nuclear power in a July 2017 report for RMI. In a February 2022 report on solutions to an energy shortage in Europe, an RMI researcher recommended that policymakers not look “backward to domestic fossil or large-scale nuclear,” criticized French and Dutch investments in nuclear energy, and proposed that all of Europe should instead invest heavily in alternative sources such as weather dependent wind. 67 68 69

League of Conservation Voters (LCV)

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) reported total revenue of $114,796,662 for the year ending December 2021. 70

The League of Conservation Voters was one of more than 100 co-signatories on a November 2020 letter to the U.S. Senate that expressed opposition to S. 4897, the “American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020.” The letter stated that nuclear power “amplifies and expands the dangers of climate change” and denounced it as an example of “false solutions to the climate crisis that perpetuate our reliance on dirty energy industries.” The letter was signed by Matthew Davis, who was identified as the legislative director for the LCV. 71

The NAACP

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) reported total revenue of $103,738,054 for the year ending December 2021. 72

In 2018 the NAACP approved a resolution titled: “In Opposition to Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Technologies as Safe, Viable Alternatives to Renewable Energy.” The text of the resolution stated: “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, the NAACP stands in opposition to nuclear energy and attempts to avoid the much needed, inevitable energy transition by merely converting from one fossil fuel source to another…” 73

In May of 2021, the NAACP was one of 715 groups and businesses listed as a co-signer on a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate that referred to nuclear energy as a “dirty” form of energy production and a “significant” source of pollution. The letter asked federal lawmakers to reduce carbon emissions by creating a “renewable electricity standard” that promoted production of weather dependent power sources such as wind turbines and solar panels, but did not promote low carbon natural gas and zero carbon nuclear energy. 74

Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) reported total revenue of $82,818,237 for the year ending March 2022. 75

SELC has repeatedly criticized and opposed nuclear power generation and promoted instead weather dependent wind and solar energy systems. 76 Examples of SELC’s anti-nuclear advocacy have occurred in Georgia, 77 78 North Carolina, 79 and Virginia. 80

Dream Corps (Green for All)

Dream Corps reported total revenue of $57,812,679 for the year ending December 2021. 81

Green for All is the climate advocacy project of Dream Corps. 82 Green for All was one of more than 600 co-signing organizations on a January 2019 open letter to Congress titled “Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change.” The signatories declared their support for new laws to bring about “100 percent decarbonization” of the transportation sector but denounced nuclear power as an example of “dirty energy” that should not be included in any legislation promoting the use of so-called “renewable energy.” 83

Movement Strategy Center

The Movement Strategy Center reported total revenue of $57,326,783 for the year ending June 2022. 84

A January 2015 report produced jointly by MSC criticized nuclear energy and carbon capture technology as examples of “false solutions” to the challenge of creating low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources. The same report praised the work of left-leaning advocates in India that were opposing nuclear power and zero-carbon hydro-electric dams. 85

Major Donors to Nuclear Energy Opponents

Large left-leaning donor foundations have been some of the major supporters of groups that oppose the use of nuclear energy.

Bloomberg Philanthropies

From 2020 through 2023, Bloomberg Philanthropies (also known as the Bloomberg Family Foundation) gave at least $80 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients during the period included the Sierra Club Foundation, the NRDC, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the Hip Hop Caucus, 350.org, the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthworks. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). 86

Bloomberg Philanthropies is a giving vehicle for left-leaning billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor New York City and a former candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Fred Stanback (Foundation for the Carolinas)

From 2020 through 2023, the Foundation for the Carolinas (FFTC) gave at least $80 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). 87

FFTC is a donor-advised fund that manages funds for 2,700 separate charitable individuals, families and organizations. 88 One of FFTC’s largest known account holders has been North Carolina billionaire Fred Stanback. 89  Stanback was characterized in an April 2018 Knoxville News report as a “known proponent of anti-humanist environmentalism [. . .] the belief that protecting the environment hinges on population control.” 90 Thirty-nine percent of FFTC’s donations from 1999-2017 ($825 million) were given to organizations favoring the Stanback policy agenda: left-leaning environmentalism, abortion, population control, or immigration restrictionism. 91

Stanback’s total commitment to his FFTC account through all years is not known, but the Los Angeles Times reported a single $397 million donation from Stanback to FFTC that took place in 2014. 92 A September 2020 report from the Washington Free Beacon revealed that just one of the anti-nuclear nonprofits, the Southern Environmental Law Center, had received more than $200 million from Stanback, through FFTC, during the preceding two decades. 93 Stanback has regularly been thanked for six and seven-figure annual donations in annual reports and other public documents put out by the Sierra Club Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), the Environmental Defense Fund,  the Environmental Working Group, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Waterkeeper Alliance. 94 Annual reports from some of these groups, such as RMI, have also credited Stanback’s son and daughter-in-law with comparable-sized donations. 95

During the 2020-2023 period, FFTC donations to left leaning groups that opposed nuclear energy exceeded $80 million and included the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the NRDC, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the Environmental Working Group, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC-WARN), the Dogwood Alliance, the Waterkeeper Alliance, the Sierra Club Foundation, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Rachel Carson Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network, and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. 96

MacArthur Foundation

From 2020 through 2023, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (MacArthur Foundation) gave at least $60 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients included the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club Foundation, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the World Resources Institute, Earthworks, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP North America), the NRDC, the U.S. Climate Action Network (US-CAN), and Voices for a Sustainable Future (a project of the Labor Network for Sustainability). The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). 97

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

From 2020 through 2023, the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation gave at least $45 million in grants to nonprofit groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients included the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, the NRDC, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Defense Fund. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). 98

Gordon Moore is the founder of Intel.

Sixteen Thirty Fund (1630 Fund)

From 2020 through 2023 the Sixteen Thirty Fund (1630 Fund) gave at least $29 million in grants to groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy. Recipients included the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, the NRDC Action Fund, the Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund, the League of Women Voters, the Sunrise PAC (a political committee aligned with the Sunrise Movement), People’s Action, and the People’s Action Institute. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). 99

Sixteen Thirty is part of a group of left-of-center lobbying and advocacy organizations administered by Arabella Advisors. In 2020, Arabella’s nonprofit network boasted total revenues exceeding $1.67 billion and total expenditures of $1.26 billion, and paid out $896 million in grants largely to other left-leaning and politically active nonprofits. 100 Identifying specific contributions to specific donors within the Arabella network is challenging. According to FoundationSearch records, Sixteen Thirty received at least $141.7 million in support from public foundations during the 2020-2023 period, of which $113.5 million came from the New Venture Fund—another nonprofit run through Arabella. 101 FoundationSearch records show that New Venture received more than $1.4 billion in support from public foundations during the period, with at least $333 million of that coming from donor advised funds that do not generally publicly identify the names of contributors. 102 A November 2021 profile in The Atlantic identified Arabella as a “massive progressive dark-money group you’ve never heard of” and Sixteen Thirty as “the indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money” which funneled “roughly $61 million of effectively untraceable money to progressive causes,” making it the “second-largest super-PAC donor in 2020.” 103 Similarly, a May 2021 New York Times analysis identified Sixteen Thirty as one of the “leading dark money spenders on the Left.” 104

Tides Foundation

From 2020 through 2023 the Tides Foundation gave at least $27 million in grants to groups that have opposed the use of nuclear energy.  Recipients included the NRDC, the World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club Foundation, the NAACP, Public Citizen, Public Citizen Foundation, Amazon Watch, People’s Action, the People’s Action Institute, the Center for Popular Democracy, the NRDC Action Fund, Green America, Dream Corps, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Movement Strategy Center, and the Sunrise Movement Education Fund. The tabulation was made using FoundationSearch records as posted through August 2023. (Foundation Search is a database that compiles philanthropic giving from the IRS 990 forms submitted by 501c3 and 501c4 donor nonprofits). 105

The Tides Foundation is a center-left grantmaker and a pass-through funder to left-leaning nonprofits. FoundationSearch records show that the Tides Foundation received more than $351.5 million in support from public foundations during the 2020-2023 period, with $40 million coming from the Tides Center (another nonprofit aligned with the Tides Foundation), and an additional $133 million from four donor advised funds that do not generally publicly identify the names of contributors. 106

Alphabetical List of Anti-Nuclear Groups

The following are nonprofits and other groups known to have positions opposing the use of nuclear energy.

It is not a complete listing. In most cases, where a group operates multiple similarly named legal nonprofits (i.e., a 501c3 educational group partnered with a 501c4 advocacy group), and/or multiple state and local affiliates (e.g., the League of Conservation Voters), only one of the largest legal entities is provided in the list below. Similarly, where a nonprofit is aligned with a political committee (e.g., the League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund), the political committee is not listed.

This is done to avoid repetition and maintain the simplicity of the list. In most if not all cases, the aligned but unlisted partner nonprofits, local affiliates and political committees are also opposed to nuclear energy. Though not listed here, there are separate InfluenceWatch profiles for many such groups.

For the list below, brief descriptions of the positions each group has taken against nuclear energy and citations for the position may be accessed on the individual profiles.

A–B

Action for a Progressive Future, ActionAid USA, Alliance for a Green Economy, Alliance for Climate Education, Alliance For The Wild Rockies, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Amazon Watch, American Family Voices,  American Friends Service Committee,  American Sustainable Business Council, Animals Are Sentient Beings, Anthropocene Alliance, Arise for Social Justice, Association for Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, Aytzim: Ecological Judaism, Backbone Campaign, Be the Change, Berkshire Environmental Action Team, Beyond Extreme Energy, Beyond Nuclear, Big Reuse, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Blue Frontier Campaign, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Bold Alliance, Bold Iowa, Breast Cancer Action, Buckeye Environmental Network 

C

Campaign for America’s Future, Carbon Disclosure Project, Care About Climate, Cascadia Wildlands, Catskill Mountainkeeper, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Ecological Living and Learning, Center for Environmentally Recycled Building Alternatives, Center for Food Safety, Center for International Environmental Law, Center for Popular Democracy, Center for Story-based Strategy, Center for Sustainable Economy, Citizens For Responsible Oil and Gas – CFROG, Citizens’ Environmental Coalition, Clean Coast, Clean Energy Action, Clean Water Action, Climate Action Now – Western Massachusetts, Climate Defense Project, Climate Generation/Will Steger Foundation, Climate Hawks Vote Civic Action, Climate Justice Alliance, Climate Mobilization, Climate Reality Project, Climate Xchange, ClimateMama, Code Pink – CODEPINK, Collaborative Center For Justice, Communities for a Better Environment, Community Alliance for Global Justice, Community Ecology Institute, Conservation Colorado, Conservation Colorado Education Fund, Corporate Accountability International, Corporate Ethics International, Courage Campaign, CREDO Victory Fund (CREDO Action)

D-F

Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Democracy Collaborative, Demos, Dogwood Alliance, Don’t Waste Arizona, Dream Corps, Earth Day Network, Earth Ethics, Inc., Earth Island Institute, Earthworks, EcoEquity, Elders Action Network, Elders Climate Action, Emerald Coastkeeper, Inc, Endangered Habitats League, Endangered Species Coalition, Enviro Show, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Environmental Health Trust, Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest, Environmental Protection Information Center, Environmental Working Group (EWG), Evergreen Islands, Extinction Rebellion (XR) , Family Farm Defenders, Feminists in Action Los Angeles (FIA-LA), Food and Water Watch, For Love of Water (FLOW), For The Generations, FracTracker Alliance, Franciscan Action Network, Free Press Action Fund, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Earth, Future Coalition

G–I

Gas Free Seneca, Geos Institute, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Good Jobs Nation, Good Work Institute, Government Accountability Project, Grassroots Environmental Education, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Green America, Green Education and Legal Fund, Green for All, Green Party of the United States, GreenLatinos, Greenpeace, GRID Alternatives, The Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy (GCCLP), Hazon, Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah), HealthyPlanet, Heirs To Our Oceans, Higher Ground, Hip Hop Caucus, Hispanic Access Foundation, Hollywood NOW, Howling For Wolves, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Hunger Action Los Angeles, In the Public Interest, Indigenous Environmental Network, The Indivisible Project (Indivisible), Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), International Rivers Network, Iroquois Studies Association

J–O

Jewish Climate Action Network, Justice Action Mobilization Network, Labor Network for Sustainability, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, League of Conservation Voters (LCV) , League of Women Voters (LWV), Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, Long Island Progressive Coalition, Los Alamos Study Group, Los Padres ForestWatch, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Mission Blue, Mothers Out Front, Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, Movement for a People’s Party, Movement Strategy Center, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Parks Conservation Association (NCPA) , Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), New Energy Economy, New Hampshire Audubon, North American Climate, Conservation and Environment, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC-WARN), The Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY) , Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Oceanic Preservation Society, Oil Change International, Olympic Climate Action, Organic Consumers Association, Our Climate Education Fund

P–S

Pacific Environment and Resources Center, Partnership for Policy Integrity, Partnership for Southern Equity, Peace Action, Pelican Media, People Demanding Action, People’s Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Planting Justice, PowerSwitch Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Project Coyote, Public Citizen, Public Justice Foundation, Publish What You Pay United States (PWYP-US), Putnam Progressives, Rachel Carson Council, Rachel’s Network, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, RESTORE: The North Woods, Right to the City Alliance, Riverkeeper, Rocky Mountain Institute, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Rogue Climate, Sacramento Climate Coalition, Sanford-Oquaga Area Concerned Citizens, Scenic Hudson Inc., Science for the People, Seneca Lake Guardian, Sierra Club, Snake River Alliance Education Fund, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern Environmental Law Center, Stand.earth, Sunrise Movement, Surfrider Foundation

T–Z

Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Tikkun & the Network of Spiritual Progressives, Toxics Action Center, Toxics Information Project, Transition US, Turner Endangered Species Fund, Turtle Island Restoration Network, U.S. Climate Action Network, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US-PIRG), Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth, Valley Watch, Veterans for Peace, Vote-Climate, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, Waterkeeper Alliance, Western States Legal Foundation, Wild Nature Institute, WildEarth Guardians, Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), WE ACT for Environmental Justice,  Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN), Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom – US Section, World Resources Institute (WRI), World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

1–9

198 Methods, 350.org

References

  1. Letter from Center for Biological Diversity et. al. to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Joe Manchin, and Rep. Frank Pallone. “RE: CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT A FEDERAL RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD AND REJECT GAS AND FALSE SOLUTIONS.” May 12, 2021. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/energy-justice/pdfs/2021-5-12_600-Group-Letter-for-RES.pdf?_gl=1*1c9h3t8*_gcl_au*MTc3NjM3MTM1Mi4xNjg5OTU1MzAz
  2. “Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee.” November 30, 2020. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sign-on_S4897_OPPOSE_119-orgs-3.pdf
  3. “Group letter to Congress urging Green New Deal passage.” Earthworks. Accessed March 19, 2024. https://earthworks.org/resources/group-letter-to-congress-urging-green-new-deal-passage/ 
  4. Braun, Ken. “Annual Revenue of Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Power Exceeds $2.3 Billion.” Capital Research Center. August 9, 2023. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/annual-revenue-of-opponents-of-carbon-free-nuclear-power-exceeds-2-3-billion/
  5. World Wildlife Fund, Inc. IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521693387/202320589349300657/full
  6. World Resources Institute. 2020 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521257057/202222279349302852/full
  7. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/116107128/202330899349301483/full
  8. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/132654926/202341319349301129/full
  9. Sierra Club. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941153307/202243199349318709/full
  10. ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/742244146/202331229349303003/full
  11. LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521733698/202203199349309120/full
  12. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 20-5602483 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  13. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 56-6047886 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  14. Braun, Ken. “Household Names Helping Ban Gas Stoves: Patient Zero.” Capital Research Center. July 27, 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/household-names-helping-ban-gas-stoves-part-1/ and https://capitalresearch.org/article/household-names-helping-ban-gas-stoves-part-4/
  15. Tanfani, Joseph. “Sessions’ allies on opposition to immigration have their roots in population control efforts.” Los Angeles Times. January 10, 2017. Accessed August 16, 2023 https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-groups-backing-sessions-had-roots-in-1484073194-htmlstory.html
  16. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN =23-7093598 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  17. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 94-3397785 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  18. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 26-4486735 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  19. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 51-0198509 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  20. “Nuclear explained.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed August 16, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php
  21. “The Science of Sustainability.” The Nature Conservancy. October 13, 2018. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/the-science-of-sustainability/
  22. Ritchie, Hannah. “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Our World in Data. February 10, 2020. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  23. “3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable.” U.S. Department of Energy. March 31, 2021. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable
  24. “Nuclear explained.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. Accessed August 16, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php
  25. “The Science of Sustainability.” The Nature Conservancy. October 13, 2018. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/the-science-of-sustainability/
  26. “Nuclear: what share of electricity comes from nuclear?” Our World in Data. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix#nuclear-what-share-of-electricity-comes-from-nuclear
  27. “3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable.” U.S. Department of Energy. March 31, 2021. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable
  28. “3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable.” U.S. Department of Energy. March 31, 2021. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable
  29. Merrill, Dave. “The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy.” Bloomberg News. April 29, 2021. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FMFWrU-IJGcJ:https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-energy-land-use-economy/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us  
  30. “QuickFacts: Detroit city, Michigan; Michigan.” United State Census Bureau. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/detroitcitymichigan,MI/PST045222
  31. Ritchie, Hannah. “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Our World in Data. February 10, 2020. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  32. “Nuclear explained: Where our uranium comes from.” U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/where-our-uranium-comes-from.php
  33. Fetter, Steve. “How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?” Scientific American. January 26, 2009. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/#:~:text=If%20the%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Agency,at%20current%20rates%20of%20consumption
  34. Fetter, Steve. “How long will the world’s uranium supplies last?” Scientific American. January 26, 2009. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/#:~:text=If%20the%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Agency,at%20current%20rates%20of%20consumption
  35. “3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable.” U.S. Department of Energy. March 31, 2021. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable
  36. “EU climate taxonomy imperils nature and climate – WWF opposes final Act.” World Wildlife Fund. April 21, 2021. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.wwfmmi.org/?3106966/EU-climate-taxonomy-imperils-nature—WWF-opposes-final-Act
  37. “CDP comment on EU Taxonomy vote.” Carbon Disclosure Project. July 7, 2022. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/governments/cdp-comment-on-eu-taxonomy-vote
  38. Letter from Center for Biological Diversity et. al. to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Joe Manchin, and Rep. Frank Pallone. “RE: CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT A FEDERAL RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD AND REJECT GAS AND FALSE SOLUTIONS.” May 12, 2021. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/energy-justice/pdfs/2021-5-12_600-Group-Letter-for-RES.pdf?_gl=1*1c9h3t8*_gcl_au*MTc3NjM3MTM1Mi4xNjg5OTU1MzAz
  39. Letter from Center for Biological Diversity et. al. to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Joe Manchin, and Rep. Frank Pallone. “RE: CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT A FEDERAL RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD AND REJECT GAS AND FALSE SOLUTIONS.” May 12, 2021. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/energy-justice/pdfs/2021-5-12_600-Group-Letter-for-RES.pdf?_gl=1*1c9h3t8*_gcl_au*MTc3NjM3MTM1Mi4xNjg5OTU1MzAz
  40. “Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee.” November 30, 2020. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sign-on_S4897_OPPOSE_119-orgs-3.pdf
  41. “Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee.” November 30, 2020. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sign-on_S4897_OPPOSE_119-orgs-3.pdf
  42. “Group letter to Congress urging Green New Deal passage.” Earthworks. January 10, 2019. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.earthworks.org/publications/group-letter-to-congress-urging-green-new-deal-passage/
  43. “Group letter to Congress urging Green New Deal passage.” Earthworks. January 10, 2019. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.earthworks.org/publications/group-letter-to-congress-urging-green-new-deal-passage/
  44. Braun, Ken. “Annual Revenue of Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Power Exceeds $2.3 Billion.” Capital Research Center. August 9, 2023. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/annual-revenue-of-opponents-of-carbon-free-nuclear-power-exceeds-2-3-billion/
  45. Braun, Ken. “Annual Revenue of Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Power Exceeds $2.3 Billion.” Capital Research Center. August 9, 2023. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/annual-revenue-of-opponents-of-carbon-free-nuclear-power-exceeds-2-3-billion/
  46. Braun, Ken. “Annual Revenue of Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Power Exceeds $2.3 Billion.” Capital Research Center. August 9, 2023. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/annual-revenue-of-opponents-of-carbon-free-nuclear-power-exceeds-2-3-billion/
  47. World Wildlife Fund, Inc. IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521693387/202320589349300657/full
  48. “EU climate taxonomy imperils nature and climate – WWF opposes final Act.” World Wildlife Fund. April 21, 2021. Accessed August 27, 2021. https://www.wwfmmi.org/?3106966/EU-climate-taxonomy-imperils-nature—WWF-opposes-final-Act
  49. “Report too lax on forestry & hydropower, and still includes polluting bioenergy types.” World Wildlife Fund. March 9, 2020. Accessed August 27, 2021. https://www.wwf.eu/?360753/Experts-nuclear-gas-and-some-bioenergy-not-sustainable-under-EU-taxonomy
  50. World Resources Institute. 2020 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521257057/202222279349302852/full
  51. “ADVISORY: WRI Hosts 2018 Goldman Environmental Prize Winners.” World Resources Institute. April 19, 2018. Accessed August 2, 2023. https://www.wri.org/news/advisory-wri-hosts-2018-goldman-environmental-prize-winners
  52. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/116107128/202330899349301483/full
  53. Christian, Rory. “New York Gets Closer to a Clean Energy Future with New Environmental Commitments.” Environmental Defense Fund. January 10, 2017. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.edf.org/media/new-york-gets-closer-clean-energy-future-new-environmental-commitments
  54. Kairam, Jayant. “California’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant to be Replaced with Renewable Energy.” Environmental Defense Fund. June 21, 2016. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.edf.org/media/californias-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-be-replaced-renewable-energy
  55. “EDF.” Environmental Progress. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://environmentalprogress.org/edf
  56. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INC. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/132654926/202341319349301129/full
  57. “NRDC.” Environmental Progress. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://environmentalprogress.org/nrdc
  58. Chhabra, Mohit. “CPUC’s Clean Energy Order: Necessary, Timely, and Ambitious.” Natural Resources Defense Council. June 21, 2021. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/mohit-chhabra/cpucs-much-needed-ambitious-and-timely-clean-energy-order
  59. Bryk, Dale. “New Jersey’s Nuclear Bailout Explained: First Look.” Natural Resources Defense Council. December 15, 2017. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/dale-bryk/new-jerseys-nuclear-bailout-explained-first-look
  60. Moore, John. “FirstEnergy Attempts An Illegal Power Plant Bailout Scheme.” Natural Resources Defense Council. March 30, 2018. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/john-moore/fe-test
  61. Kennedy, Kit. “Indian Point Is Closing, but Clean Energy Is Here to Stay.” NRDC. National Resources Defense Council, April 28, 2021. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kit-kennedy/indian-point-closing-clean-energy-here-stay
  62. Mcgeehan, Patrick. “Indian Point Is Shutting Down. That Means More Fossil Fuel.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 12, 2021. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/12/nyregion/indian-point-power-plant-closing.html
  63. Sierra Club. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941153307/202243199349318709/full
  64. Nuclear Free Future.” Sierra Club. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free
  65. “Sierra Club Grassroots Network: Nuclear Free Campaign.” Sierra Club. Accessed June 11, 2023. https://content.sierraclub.org/grassrootsnetwork/teams/nuclear-free-campaign?_ga=2.15033332.370699222.1686591488-369628731.1686256780&_gl=1*4p80by*_ga*MzY5NjI4NzMxLjE2ODYyNTY3ODA.*_ga_41DQ5KQCWV*MTY4NjU5MTQ4OC4yLjEuMTY4NjU5MTY2Mi4wLjAuMA
  66. ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/742244146/202331229349303003/full
  67. Lovins, Amory. “Learning From Japan’s Nuclear Disaster.” Rocky Mountain Institute. 2011. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://rmi.org/insight/learning-from-japans-nuclear-disaster/
  68. Tatarenko, Oleksiy. “Reality Check: Europe Must Go Renewable to Escape Energy and Climate Crisis.” Rocky Mountain Institute. February 22, 2022. Accessed August 2, 2023. https://rmi.org/europe-must-go-renewable-to-escape-energy-and-climate-crisis/
  69. Lovins, Amory. “Fourteen Alleged Magical Properties That Coal and Nuclear Plants Don’t Have and Shouldn’t Be Paid Extra for Providing.” Rocky Mountain Institute. July 21, 2017. Accessed August 23, 2023. https://rmi.org/fourteen-alleged-magical-properties-coal-nuclear-plants-dont-shouldnt-paid-extra-providing/
  70. LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS INC. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521733698/202203199349309120/full
  71. “Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee.” November 30, 2020. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sign-on_S4897_OPPOSE_119-orgs-3.pdf
  72. NAACP EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMS INC. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131084135/202203199349330160/full
  73. “RESOLUTION: In Opposition to Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Technologies as Safe, Viable Alternatives to Renewable Energy.” NAACP. 2018. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://naacp.org/resources/opposition-nuclear-and-fossil-fuel-technologies-safe-viable-alternatives-renewable-energy
  74. Letter from Center for Biological Diversity et. al. to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Joe Manchin, and Rep. Frank Pallone. “RE: CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT A FEDERAL RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD AND REJECT GAS AND FALSE SOLUTIONS.” May 12, 2021. Accessed July 25, 2023. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/energy-justice/pdfs/2021-5-12_600-Group-Letter-for-RES.pdf?_gl=1*1c9h3t8*_gcl_au*MTc3NjM3MTM1Mi4xNjg5OTU1MzAz
  75. SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521436778/202203189349317135/full
  76. “New report shows solar, energy efficiency outcompete nuclear in meeting Georgia’s energy needs.” Southern Environmental Law Center. May 12, 2017. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/new-report-shows-solar-energy-efficiency-outcompete-nuclear-for-meeting-geo/
  77. “Georgia’s Plant Vogtle Unit 3 begins ‘commercial operation.’” Southern Environmental Law Center. July 31, 2023. https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/georgias-plant-vogtle-unit-3-begins-commercial-operation/
  78. “Court Again Rules that Flawed Decision to Continue Vogtle Project May Not be Challenged Until Project is Finished.” Southern Environmental Law Center. April 21, 2020. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/court-again-rules-that-flawed-decision-to-continue-vogtle-project-may-not-be-challenged-until-project-is-finished/
  79. “Clean energy advocates propose lower-cost, lower-emission carbon plan option.” Southern Environmental Law Center. July 21, 2022. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/clean-energy-advocates-propose-lower-cost-lower-emission-carbon-plan-option/
  80. “SELC statement on Dominion Integrated Resource Plan.” Southern Environmental Law Center. May 3, 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/selc-statement-on-dominion-integrated-resource-plan/
  81. Dream Corps. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/261140201/202202989349300345/full
  82. “Green for All.” Dream Corps. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://dream.org/green-for-all/
  83. “Group letter to Congress urging Green New Deal passage.” Earthworks. January 10, 2019. Accessed July 27, 2023. https://www.earthworks.org/publications/group-letter-to-congress-urging-green-new-deal-passage/
  84. Movement Strategy Center. 2021 IRS Form 990. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/201037643/202321289349302312/full
  85. “Pathways to Resilience: Transforming Cities in a Changing Climate.” Movement Strategy Center | Movement Generation | The Praxis Project | Reimagine! RP&E. January 2015. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://kresge.org/sites/default/files/Pathways-to-resilience-2015.pdf
  86. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 20-5602483 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  87. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 56-6047886 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  88. “About Us.” Foundation for the Carolinas. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.fftc.org/what_is_fftc
  89. Tanfani, Joseph. “Sessions’ allies on opposition to immigration have their roots in population control efforts.” Los Angeles Times. January 10, 2017. Accessed August 16, 2023 https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-groups-backing-sessions-had-roots-in-1484073194-htmlstory.html
  90. Crocker, Brittany. “Headache powder billionaire donates big to small group creating migraines for TVA.” Knoxville News. April 6, 2018. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2018/04/06/tva-target-group-funded-headache-powder-billionaire-fred-stanback/461636002/
  91. Data compiled by FoundationSearch.com subscription service, a project of Metasoft Systems, Inc., from forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Queries conducted May 1, 2019.
  92. Tanfani, Joseph. “Sessions’ allies on opposition to immigration have their roots in population control efforts.” Los Angeles Times. January 10, 2017. Accessed August 16, 2023 https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-groups-backing-sessions-had-roots-in-1484073194-htmlstory.html
  93. Lehman, Charles Fain. “Billionaire Population-Control Advocate Funds Premier Environmental Group.” Washington Free Beacon. September 25, 2020. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://freebeacon.com/politics/billionaire-population-control-advocate-funds-premier-environmental-group/
  94. Braun, Ken. ““Anti-Humanist Environmentalism” and the Foundation for the Carolinas.” Capital Research Center. June 18, 2019. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/anti-humanist-environmentalism-and-the-foundation-for-the-carolinas/
  95. Braun, Ken. “Household Names Helping Ban Gas Stoves: Patient Zero.” Capital Research Center. July 27, 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/household-names-helping-ban-gas-stoves-part-1/ and https://capitalresearch.org/article/household-names-helping-ban-gas-stoves-part-4/
  96. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 56-6047886 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  97. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN =23-7093598 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  98. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 94-3397785 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  99. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 26-4486735 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  100. Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990) (multiple). New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, Windward Fund. 2020. Part I. Lines 12, 13, 18.
  101. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Recipient Foundation EIN = 26-4486735 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  102. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Recipient Foundation EIN = 20-5806345 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  103. Emma Green. “The Massive Progressive Dark-Money Group You’ve Never Heard Of.” The Atlantic. Nov. 2, 2021. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/11/arabella-advisors-money-democrats/620553/
  104. Kenneth P. Vogel. “Swiss Billionaire Quietly Becomes Influential Force Among Democrats.” New York Times. August 16, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/us/politics/hansjorg-wyss-money-democrats.html
  105. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Granting Foundation EIN = 51-0198509 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  106. FoundationSearch query on August 15, 2023, using Recipient Foundation EIN = 51-0198509 and Granting Year = 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020. FoundationSearch.org
  See an error? Let us know!