WASHINGTON — Fervor against President Donald Trump and his push for the use of fossil fuels is fueling a fundraising surge among environmental organizations.

The green groups hope to turn that green into victories for enough Democrats in Congress that they can be a check against the president and his administration's attempts to roll back environmental rules.

Though many of the groups do not yet have their final campaign spending totals tallied, the figures so far indicate that they will spend more than ever on the 2018 election:

• The League of Conservation Voters is planning to spend $60 million to help Democrats win back Congress and statehouses nationwide, breaking a record the environmental organization set in two years ago when it spent $45 million. "It will be by far the most money we've ever spent," said the group's president, Gene Karpinski. "Our supporters around the country are stepping up in a big way because what they're seeing is the most anti-environmental president in history."

• The Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund said it will likely just about double its campaign spending from two years ago, from about $1 million to $2 million, "with the bulk of that going to targeted get-out-the-vote efforts," spokesman Denis Dison said.

• The Sierra Club does not have a final campaign spending total yet, but a spokesman for the nation's largest environmental organization said it expects to spend around $6 million. In 2016, the Sierra Club had planned to devote $3.8 million to campaigns. "It's not just about the millions of dollars spent," Ariel Hayes, the Sierra Club's political director, said, "but about the millions of actions taken by our members and supporters who are volunteering on campaigns, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and engaging in any capacity."

• Likewise, the Environmental Defense Action Fund has not nailed down its campaign spending total, but through a spokesman the group said it expects "our total spending will surpass the more than $6 million we spent in 2016."

Yet even with more campaign cash than ever, environmental groups still may face some of the same headwinds with voters they have in years past. Historically, polls have shown that environmental issues rank much lower among voters' concerns compared to those that affect their pocketbooks. According to a Pew Research Center survey in June, only 4 percent of respondents named the environment as their No. 1 issue for candidates to address. Immigration, health care, education, the economy, guns, jobs and taxes all scored higher.

Indeed, the League of Conservation Voters has a history of mixed success. In 2016, only 30 percent of the $19 million it spent on congressional races in 2016 went to winning candidates. But just a year later, across-the-board victories for endorsees like Democratic Govs. Phil Murphy in New Jersey and Ralph Northam in Virginia gave the group a 96 percent success rate in all races that year.

The League of Conservation Voters hopes to buck that trend by using district-by-district polling to hone its messaging. The group's internal polling has found that emphasizing the health repercussions of air and water pollution, as well as the need to protect public lands, plays particularly well with suburban women, a key voting bloc in many tight House districts at the edges of cities.