anti-nuclear Featured Green Watch InfluenceWatch Nuclear energy nuclear power

The opposition to emissions-free nuclear power -Capital Research Center

March 5, 2026

Editorial note: What follows is a reproduction of the InfluenceWatch report for the Opposition to Nuclear Energy movement.

***

Opposition to Nuclear Energy

There are more than 700 nonprofits and other advocacy groups in the United States that oppose the use of carbon free nuclear energy. A July 2025 analysis from the Capital Research Center examined more than 300 nonprofits that opposed nuclear energy and conservatively estimated that the total combined annual revenue of the American opponents of nuclear power exceeded $3.3 billion.

Some of the largest nonprofits opposing nuclear energy, as measured by the revenue reported in their most recent filings with the IRS (as of January 2025) included the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute (WRI), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, the Rocky Mountain Institute, Grid Alternatives, and the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).

Some of the largest known contributors to the anti-nuclear-energy groups have included Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Foundation for the Carolinas (FFTC) / Fred Stanback, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation the Sixteen Thirty Fund (1630 Fund) / Arabella Advisors and the Tides Foundation.

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. 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. 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. 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.”

Background on U.S. Nuclear Energy

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.”

“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).”

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

“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.”

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.”

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.

Letter to House and Senate Democratic Leadership (August 2022)

There were 650 signatories on an August 2022 letter organized by People vs Fossil Fuels that was addressed to the “Democratic Leadership” in Congress. The letter was titled: “Opposition to Fossil Fuel Project Approvals and Permitting Reforms Conditioned on the Inflation Reduction Act.”

The letter portrayed as “false solutions” carbon sequestration, carbon-free nuclear energy and all sources of energy not approved as “renewable” by the signatories: “Relying only on large scale investments in renewable energy and environmental justice alone will not stave off climate disaster if Congress simultaneously puts its legislative foot on the gas to expand fossil fuel production and false solutions like carbon capture, hydrogen, biomass, biofuels, factory farm gas, and nuclear power.”

Signatories included Church World Service, California Environmental Justice Alliance, Oxfam America, CASA, NDN Collective, Center for Climate Integrity, Bend the Arc, the Clean Air Council, and New York Lawyers for Public Interest.

Letter to U.S. Senate Regarding Build Back Better Act (December 2021)

In December 2021, more than 100 groups co-signed an open letter opposing the nuclear power production tax credits offered in HR 5376, the House of Representatives draft of the Build Back Better Act. The groups identified nuclear power as a one of several “unproven and unnecessary technologies” and “harmful energy sources” that “would extend demand for fossil fuels.”

The letter urged the Senate to remove nuclear power from the list of energy sources eligible for the tax credits. The cosigners included the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy, Center for Economic Democracy, the New Economy Coalition, UPROSE, GreenFaith, Just Transition Alliance, MADRE, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Gender And Radiation Impact Project, Oil & Gas Action Network, Women’s Environment and Development Organization, Citizens Awareness Network, the Eco-Justice Collaborative, the Ecological Options Network, Florida Rising, Flint Rising, the Romero Institute, the Native Movement, and the Sane Energy Project.

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.”

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.”

Letter to President Joseph R. Biden (April 2021)

An April 2021 letter to President Joe Biden from more than 250 nonprofits and other groups asked the administration to promote weather dependent wind and solar power systems and “end the fossil fuel era.” The letter also advised the president to “Phase out nuclear energy as an inherently dirty, dangerous and costly energy source.” Signatories included the Center for Biological Diversity, the California Teachers Association, Polar Bears International, the Center for Environmental Health, Health Care for All, the Resource Renewal Institute, the Bank Information Center and the Alliance for Affordable Energy.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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, the Sustainable Economies Law Center, and Surfrider Foundation.

Largest Anti-Nuclear Nonprofits

A July 2025 analysis from the Capital Research Center examined more than 300 nonprofits that opposed nuclear energy and conservatively estimated that the total combined annual revenue of the American opponents of nuclear power exceeded $3.3 billion.

As of July 2025, the most recent reported annual revenue of 21 nonprofits known to oppose nuclear energy exceeded $30 million.

World Wildlife Fund ($374.8 million)

World Resources Institute ($357.8 million)

Church World Service ($283.8 million)

Environmental Defense Fund ($247 million)

California Teachers Association ($220.7 million)

Natural Resources Defense Council ($193.1 million)

Sierra Club ($173.4 million)

Rocky Mountain Institute ($164.7 million)

Oxfam America ($83.1 million)

League of Conservation Voters ($67.5 million)

GRID Alternatives ($63.3 million)

Southern Environmental Law Center ($62.8 million)

American Friends Service Committee ($48.2 million)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ($43.6 million)

Greenpeace ($40.2 million)

Carbon Disclosure Project – CDP ($38.4 million)

National Parks Conservation Association ($35.1 million)

Center for Biological Diversity ($34.5 million)

Taproot Earth ($32.8 million)

Movement Strategy Center ($32.3 million)

Earth Island Institute ($30.9 million)

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).

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).

FFTC is a donor-advised fund that manages funds for 2,700 separate charitable individuals, families and organizations. One of FFTC’s largest known account holders has been North Carolina billionaire Fred Stanback. 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.” 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.

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. 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. 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. Annual reports from some of these groups, such as RMI, have also credited Stanback’s son and daughter-in-law with comparable-sized donations.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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. 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. 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. 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.” Similarly, a May 2021 New York Times analysis identified Sixteen Thirty as one of the “leading dark money spenders on the Left.”

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).

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.

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.