

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Bill McKibben, author and co-founder of 350.org, minces no words addressing those environmentally-minded voters who are fretting over the mixed record of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton: Elect her, "and then give her hell."
In a column published at The Nation on Tuesday, McKibben shares the sentiment felt by many progressive voters this election season: "I'd much rather have been campaigning for Bernie Sanders."
Those feelings, McKibben acknowledges, were compounded after WikiLeaks revealed this weekend that behind closed doors Clinton defended natural gas and fracking, and said that environmental activists should "get a life."
Those damning email leaks only further underscored what McKibben describes as Clinton's "craven" silence over the Dakota Access Pipeline fight.
"Even the sight of attack dogs being used on peaceful Native American protesters didn't move her to break ranks with her industry allies and that fraction of the labor movement that still wants to build pipelines," he writes. "That's craven on her part, pure and simple."
"So why," he asks, "are many of us out there working to beat [Republican nominee Donald Trump] and elect her? Because Trump is truly a horror."
And when faced with the choice between a "horror," and a politician who--through growing pressure from concerned citizens--has shown she can be pushed on issues related to climate, McKibben reasons, he'll take the latter.
Indeed, Trump's idea of environmental policy is slashing regulations, closing the Environmental Protection Agency, fast-tracking new pipeline projects, and lifting restrictions on all sources of American energy, including the dirtiest fossil fuels and offshore deposits.
"[I]f Trump wins," McKibben continues, "we backslide on the small gains we've made. We've forced Clinton to say through gritted teeth that she opposes Keystone, for instance. She can't, I think, go back on that. Trump has made it clear he'll permit that and every other pipeline, just as soon as he's done tearing up the Paris climate accord."
What's more, he notes that on some issues, like women's rights and immigration, "Clinton actually seems sincere."
The "good news," McKibben concludes, "is that when she wins, none of us will be under the slightest illusion about who she is."
And the day after she's elected, he says, that's when the environmental movement will truly need to kick into gear.
"The honeymoon won't last 10 minutes," he says, "on November 9 we'll be organizing for science and human rights and against the timid incrementalism that marks her approach. It's clear that we need to beat the creepy perv she's running against. It's also clear that we then need to press harder than ever for real progress on the biggest crisis the world has ever faced."
McKibben's plea to voters is similar to that made by his political ally, Sanders--who, during the Democratic primary, had appointed McKibben as a surrogate to negotiate the party platform. Sanders, too, has argued that the initial priority is making sure Clinton is elected, and then mobilizing to pressure her on progressive issues, from energy policy to healthcare.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Bill McKibben, author and co-founder of 350.org, minces no words addressing those environmentally-minded voters who are fretting over the mixed record of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton: Elect her, "and then give her hell."
In a column published at The Nation on Tuesday, McKibben shares the sentiment felt by many progressive voters this election season: "I'd much rather have been campaigning for Bernie Sanders."
Those feelings, McKibben acknowledges, were compounded after WikiLeaks revealed this weekend that behind closed doors Clinton defended natural gas and fracking, and said that environmental activists should "get a life."
Those damning email leaks only further underscored what McKibben describes as Clinton's "craven" silence over the Dakota Access Pipeline fight.
"Even the sight of attack dogs being used on peaceful Native American protesters didn't move her to break ranks with her industry allies and that fraction of the labor movement that still wants to build pipelines," he writes. "That's craven on her part, pure and simple."
"So why," he asks, "are many of us out there working to beat [Republican nominee Donald Trump] and elect her? Because Trump is truly a horror."
And when faced with the choice between a "horror," and a politician who--through growing pressure from concerned citizens--has shown she can be pushed on issues related to climate, McKibben reasons, he'll take the latter.
Indeed, Trump's idea of environmental policy is slashing regulations, closing the Environmental Protection Agency, fast-tracking new pipeline projects, and lifting restrictions on all sources of American energy, including the dirtiest fossil fuels and offshore deposits.
"[I]f Trump wins," McKibben continues, "we backslide on the small gains we've made. We've forced Clinton to say through gritted teeth that she opposes Keystone, for instance. She can't, I think, go back on that. Trump has made it clear he'll permit that and every other pipeline, just as soon as he's done tearing up the Paris climate accord."
What's more, he notes that on some issues, like women's rights and immigration, "Clinton actually seems sincere."
The "good news," McKibben concludes, "is that when she wins, none of us will be under the slightest illusion about who she is."
And the day after she's elected, he says, that's when the environmental movement will truly need to kick into gear.
"The honeymoon won't last 10 minutes," he says, "on November 9 we'll be organizing for science and human rights and against the timid incrementalism that marks her approach. It's clear that we need to beat the creepy perv she's running against. It's also clear that we then need to press harder than ever for real progress on the biggest crisis the world has ever faced."
McKibben's plea to voters is similar to that made by his political ally, Sanders--who, during the Democratic primary, had appointed McKibben as a surrogate to negotiate the party platform. Sanders, too, has argued that the initial priority is making sure Clinton is elected, and then mobilizing to pressure her on progressive issues, from energy policy to healthcare.
Bill McKibben, author and co-founder of 350.org, minces no words addressing those environmentally-minded voters who are fretting over the mixed record of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton: Elect her, "and then give her hell."
In a column published at The Nation on Tuesday, McKibben shares the sentiment felt by many progressive voters this election season: "I'd much rather have been campaigning for Bernie Sanders."
Those feelings, McKibben acknowledges, were compounded after WikiLeaks revealed this weekend that behind closed doors Clinton defended natural gas and fracking, and said that environmental activists should "get a life."
Those damning email leaks only further underscored what McKibben describes as Clinton's "craven" silence over the Dakota Access Pipeline fight.
"Even the sight of attack dogs being used on peaceful Native American protesters didn't move her to break ranks with her industry allies and that fraction of the labor movement that still wants to build pipelines," he writes. "That's craven on her part, pure and simple."
"So why," he asks, "are many of us out there working to beat [Republican nominee Donald Trump] and elect her? Because Trump is truly a horror."
And when faced with the choice between a "horror," and a politician who--through growing pressure from concerned citizens--has shown she can be pushed on issues related to climate, McKibben reasons, he'll take the latter.
Indeed, Trump's idea of environmental policy is slashing regulations, closing the Environmental Protection Agency, fast-tracking new pipeline projects, and lifting restrictions on all sources of American energy, including the dirtiest fossil fuels and offshore deposits.
"[I]f Trump wins," McKibben continues, "we backslide on the small gains we've made. We've forced Clinton to say through gritted teeth that she opposes Keystone, for instance. She can't, I think, go back on that. Trump has made it clear he'll permit that and every other pipeline, just as soon as he's done tearing up the Paris climate accord."
What's more, he notes that on some issues, like women's rights and immigration, "Clinton actually seems sincere."
The "good news," McKibben concludes, "is that when she wins, none of us will be under the slightest illusion about who she is."
And the day after she's elected, he says, that's when the environmental movement will truly need to kick into gear.
"The honeymoon won't last 10 minutes," he says, "on November 9 we'll be organizing for science and human rights and against the timid incrementalism that marks her approach. It's clear that we need to beat the creepy perv she's running against. It's also clear that we then need to press harder than ever for real progress on the biggest crisis the world has ever faced."
McKibben's plea to voters is similar to that made by his political ally, Sanders--who, during the Democratic primary, had appointed McKibben as a surrogate to negotiate the party platform. Sanders, too, has argued that the initial priority is making sure Clinton is elected, and then mobilizing to pressure her on progressive issues, from energy policy to healthcare.