The sun rises behind the U.S. Capitol as smoke from wildfires in Canada fills the air on July 17, 2026. (Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images)If you, like me, felt angry, sad, and helpless as explosive Canadian wildfires blanketed parts of the United States in smoke this past weekend, it may be heartening to know that most Americans accept the reality of what’s going on.Polling released Saturday by Data for Progress shows that 64 percent of U.S. voters—nearly two thirds—understand that wildfires are being worsened by climate change. The survey of 1,164 voters across the political spectrum showed that only 27 percent don’t think climate change is exacerbating wildfires, and 9 percent don’t know. Interestingly, Republican voters were split down the middle: 45 percent recognized the climate-wildfire connection, while 45 percent rejected it.Results from a Data for Progress survey of 1,164 U.S. likely voters nationally, weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, geography, and recalled presidential vote. The margin of error associated with the sample size is ±3 percentage points. Source: Data for ProgressBut here’s something revealing: While Republicans in the real world are split on the climate-wildfire connection, Republicans in Congress are not. In fact, every GOP lawmaker who’s spoken up about last week’s air quality crisis has squarely blamed the wildfires’ intensity on poor Canadian forest management, and left out the climate component entirely.Gosh. I wonder why that might be?What, perchance, could be occurring??Some might explain it as simply another example of following Trump, who has been doing the same thing very loudly over the last couple of days. And sure, I’m willing to say that fawning their unstable validation-obsessed climate-denier president is probably part of the equation. But I also believe that, no matter the president, Republicans in Congress would still be ignoring the climate aspect of these wildfires, and directing blame literally anywhere else. And that’s for one simple reason: They are completely bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.Subscribe nowTo show you what I mean, let’s take a look at some of the lawmakers who’ve been loudest about blaming Canada for the wildfires over the last week.Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced legislation Friday to sanction Canada for failing to contain the wildfires, blaming only insufficient forest management. Moreno has received $445,823 in direct campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since his election in 2024. He was the sixth-largest Senate recipient of oil and gas funding in the 2024 cycle. Rep. John James (R-MI) on Wednesday led a group of Michigan Republicans in sending a strongly worded letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, blaming the country for failing to ‘manage its forests.’ James has received $692,343 in direct campaign donations from the oil and gas industry since his election in 2022. In the 2024 election cycle, he was among the top 5 percent of House recipients of oil and gas money, ranking 20th out of 435 members.Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) released a statement Monday accusing Canada of allowing its forests to ‘burn out of control,’ and urging lawmakers to pass the FENCES Act—a bill to shield fossil fuel producers from complying with the Clean Air Act when they believe pollution is coming from abroad. Pfluger has received $2,011,278 in direct contributions from the oil and gas industry since his election in 2020. During the 2024 election cycle alone, he received $808,224—more than any other member of the House, and over $300,000 more than the second-largest recipient, Speaker Mike Johnson.Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) on Friday led another group of Michigan Republicans in. sending a letter to Canada’s U.S. ambassador, claiming the wildfires are ‘largely driven by decades of inadequate forest management.’ Walberg has received $473,546 in direct campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 2010. Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO) has been using the Canadian wildfires to argue for loosening air pollution requirements on American businesses. Evans has received $112,929 in direct campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since his election in 2024. He ranked 50th out of 435 House members in oil and gas contributions during the 2024 cycle, placing him among the top 12 percent of recipients.I point this out just to reinforce a couple things that most people here probably already know, but that I think bear repeating as we continue through this hellish Super El Niño summer of compounding climate disasters. First, fossil fuel money is an immensely powerful, intensely corrupting force in American politics that limits not only what conversations we can have about massive problems, but what we can do to solve them. It is uncontroversial in the scientific community to say that climate change is intensifying these explosive wildfires, particularly in the Canadian boreal forests. And yet, politically, we cannot do literally anything about it, because calling attention to climate change would require drawing attention to the industry primarily responsible. And that can’t happen. Because money.The Climate BrinkCanada’s boreal wildfires aren’t just bad forest managementOver the past week smoke from Canadian wildfires has once again poured into cities across Canada and the northern US. Toronto briefly had the worst air quality of any major city on Earth, Thunder Bay’s readings went off the top of Canada’s air quality health index scale, and unhealthy air alerts…Read more4 days ago · 219 likes · 114 comments · Zeke HausfatherSecond, Donald Trump isn’t the only politician whose grasp on power is predicated on never challenging the fossil fuel status quo. The entirety of the Republican Party is captured by this industry, and a large number of Democrats are, too. If you look at that big list of Open Secrets oil and gas recipients, you’ll see a lot of Ds next to some of the top names. Coincidentally, those Democrats rarely lead the fight for policies that would seriously make a dent in reducing emissions.Of course, direct campaign contributions aren’t the only way fossil fuel money influences politics. The industry has an almost unthinkably large political infrastructure of super PACs, dark money organizations, trade groups, lobbying operations, think tanks, and advertising campaigns. A lawmaker doesn’t necessarily have to directly receive a giant check to kowtow to Big Oil.It just so happens that, in some cases, lawmakers do receive giant checks. This is why I’ve come to believe the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge is so important—not just heading into these midterm elections, but in every election. Because, at least in my years of covering this issue, I’ve found there’s simply no way to have an honest conversation about the climate problem when you have fossil fuel money stuffed down your throat.The polling makes the political failure even clearer. Despite more than 40 years of lavishly funded propaganda telling them not to believe their own eyes—or lungs—45 percent of Republican voters understand that climate change is real and worsening wildfires. And yet those voters have essentially no representation in Congress. Not one Republican lawmaker loudly responding to this crisis has acknowledged what nearly half of the party’s own voters already know.I would bet a decent amount of money that some of these lawmakers know it, too. And that may be the most tragic part. The fossil fuel industry’s great political achievement is not that it has persuaded every Republican that climate change is a hoax. It is that it has made the truth unspeakable among Republican politicians—even when their constituents are choking on it.Share’The best way to solve it is to just stop burning fossil fuels.’ - climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck speaking to the CBC about worsening Canadian wildfires.Last note: As I explained in the last two letters, we’re in the middle of our annual churn—the time of year when we see the biggest drop in revenue. We are SO CLOSE to the goal that will help us maintain our revenue base, and keep HEATED independent, unpaywalled, and free from ads, sponsors, corporate owners, and wealthy donors deciding what climate stories are worth telling. We just need about 20 more people to step up and join the paid subscriber community.Annual subscriptions are currently 20 percent off for the first year—just $5 a month to help keep unbought, unbossed, accessible climate reporting and analysis alive. If you’re financially able, help us get over the hump so I can stop fundraising! (I hate it!!)Support climate journalism for 20% off