Climate Hawks Vote
US Climate grassroots advocacy group
Climate Hawks Vote is a grassroots advocacy group that supports candidates and elected officials whom it identifies as making action on climate change a top priority. Founded in 2013, it consists of a Super PAC and a social welfare organization.
History
"Climate hawk" is a term often used to describe people who work for aggressive steps regarding climate change and clean energy. The group seeks out those politicians who support pricing carbon, ending the use of coal, and deploying renewable energy, particularly solar and wind energy.
Co-founder and chair RL Miller is an activist, blogger, and chair of the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus. The other founders are Hunter Cutting, Director of Strategic Communications at Climate Nexus, and journalist and climate activist Brad Johnson.
The group was founded out of Miller's frustration that parts of the Democratic Party support fossil fuel. Miller states that within the party, "You don't speak out for restricting a woman's right to choose. You don't speak out for the Koch brothers. Yet at the same time, we've got plenty of people within the Democratic Party who think it is perfectly okay to speak out in support of coal." Miller has cited Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, "an open cheerleader for coal," as a motivating factor in the creation of the group.
“Climate Hawks Vote” enters the record as uS Climate grassroots advocacy group. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Climate, Hawks and Vote can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Climate Hawks Vote” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Climate, Hawks and Vote provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q20715608. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2013.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Climate Hawks Vote”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Climate Hawks Vote primary sources, Climate Hawks Vote archive and Climate research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Climate Hawks Vote”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Climate Hawks Vote” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.