SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 28 2016, 11:30am EDT
Contact:
Dani Heffernan:,dani@350action.org
How the Presidential Candidates Have Moved (Or Not) on Climate
Full list of links to videos and articles at the bottom
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire
Over the last six months, a network of climate activists, college students and volunteers have been showing up at rallies and events across the country to ask Presidential candidates about an issue that can often go missing from the campaign trail: climate change.
Coordinated by 350 Action, the 501(c)(4) political arm of 350.org, these paid staff and volunteers have helped push the leading Democratic candidates to adopt more progressive positions on the issue, and exposed some of the most outrageous cases of climate denial on the Republican side of the race.
"The 2012 election went by with only the slightest mention of climate change," said Yong Jung Cho, Campaign Coordinator with 350 Action. "This year, we set out to make it one of the most talked about issues in the race, and expand the debate to force candidates to address issues of climate justice, and how the environment intersects with other issues like race, class, and immigration."
350 Action estimates that it has asked more than 70 direct questions and reached every top presidential candidate multiple times.
On the Democratic side of the race, the 350 Action team has helped push Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley to address some of the highest profile climate and environmental justice issues facing the nation, driving each candidate to take progressively stronger stances as the race has continued.
Persistent questioning drove one of the most notable political "evolutions" of the campaign thus far: Hillary Clinton's position on the Keystone XL pipeline. 350 Action volunteers first asked the former Secretary of State about her position on the project on July 28th, when she responded that "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question." A 350 Action volunteer pushed Clinton again on September 17th and responded, "I have been waiting for the administration to make a decision. I can't wait much longer." The very next day, September 18th, she got pressured again. Finally on September 22nd, after a question from a 350 Action volunteer in Iowa, Clinton pivoted and said, "I oppose it."
All three Democratic candidates have also faced questions on offshore drilling, fracking, fossil fuel extraction on public lands, fossil fuel divestment, the investigation into ExxonMobil's climate lies, and whether they will take a pledge to refuse fossil fuel industry contributions. On the last question, both Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders answered "yes," while Clinton said she didn't think she received much money from the industry, but she was "gonna take a look." (Reports have shown that almost all of the Clinton campaign's top bundlers have ties to the fossil fuel industry).
The massive methane leak in Porter Ranch has brought a harsh spotlight on the dangers of fracking into the presidential election. Just last week, Bernie Sanders told a 350 Action campaigner that he would shut down the well and expressed his strong stance against this extreme extraction. When a student with 350 Action asked Hillary Clinton about fracking, she expressed her support for Porter Ranch communities but refused to take a strong position on fracking. Asked again only hours later, Clinton told a 350 Action volunteer that "unless spills can be prevented it should not go forward."
As for the Republicans, 350 Action and their supporters have had more luck eliciting declarations of climate denial and defenses of the fossil fuel industry than any significant evolution on the issue. Texas Senator Ted Cruz told a student in January that, "It is in fact a fact that the polar ice caps are bigger today than they were before...we have had 18 years of no significant warming whatsoever." Both statements are factually incorrect. In November, Florida Senator Marco Rubio told a 350 Action volunteer that "it doesn't matter" if fossil fuels cause climate change because his priority is keeping the economy strong. Asked this January about investigations into whether ExxonMobil lied about climate change to the American public, Rubio said the inquiries were "nothing but a left wing effort to demonize industries in America."
"I never thought that when I grew up I'd become a professional question-asker," said Miles Goodrich, a recent graduate from Bowdoin College, who has been stationed in New Hampshire for the last 4 months. "I certainly never raised my hand this much in school. The key is to find a good position visible to the candidate, get your hand up early, keep the question succinct, and always go for a follow up. They usually try and dodge the issue the first time."
While 350 Action's teams on the ground have peppered the candidates with questions around the country, its volunteers and everyday voters unaffiliated with the campaign who have kept the climate issue in the spotlight, according to Cho, the organization's coordinator.
"There will be moments where we've got someone waiting to ask a climate question and then another Iowa or New Hampshire voter will get called on and take the words right out of our mouths," she said. "With the crazy weather, big political developments like Keystone and the Paris Climate Talks, and disasters like the water in Flint and the methane leak in California, climate and energy issues are on the forefront of many voters' minds. People are looking for leadership, we're just helping ask the right questions to see who's ready to provide it."
During the busy primary months ahead, 350 Action will continue to pressure all presidential candidates to take stronger stances on the climate movement's top priorities and pressing issues of the day. In particular, the campaign is looking for commitments to end fossil fuel development on public land, strong stances against fracking, support for a rapid just transition to 100% renewable energy, and a commitment to pursue environmental justice for communities across the United States and around the world.
###
Democratic Candidate Questions and Answers
Keystone XL
- Clinton 2010: inclined to approve KXL
- Sanders Nov 2011: "In my view, the evidence is overwhelming that this pipeline is not in the best interest of our environment or the economic interest of the American people, and the president should reject it."
- Clinton July 28 2015: "if it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question...I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision, and then I will do so."
- Clinton Sept 17 2015: "I have been waiting for the administration to make a decision. I can't wait much longer. And I am putting the White House on notice. I'm going to tell you what I think soon because I can't wait."
- Clinton Sept 18 2015: "what I have said is that you will hear from me shortly, and you will, but you're not gonna hear from me today"
- Clinton Sept 22 2015: "I oppose it"
Arctic drilling
- O'Malley June 2015: releases white paper announcing opposition to drilling permits in the Arctic
- Sanders Nov 4: introduces "Keep It In The Ground" Act, banning all new fossil fuel extraction on public lands, including the Arctic
- Clinton Oct 16: "we want to keep more fossil fuels under the ocean and in the ground, that's why I'm against Arctic drilling"
- Aug 18 tweet: "The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling"
Fracking
- Sanders Oct 2014: supports state fracking bans in Vermont and California
- Sanders Jan 21: "I'm against fracking, I'm against pipelines."
- Clinton Jan 22: "I oppose irresponsible use of technology. I oppose a failure to disclose the chemicals. I oppose a lack of monitoring of methane. So, those are all the problems, and I don't know whether they can be solved or not."
- O'Malley Jan 24: supports (regulated) fracking
New fossil fuel extraction on public lands
- O'Malley Nov 3: "probably" would end new leasing of fossil fuels on public lands
- Sanders Nov 4: introduces "Keep It In The Ground" Act, banning all new fossil fuel extraction on public lands
- Clinton July 16: no to banning fossil fuel extraction on public lands
- Sanders Sept 20: supports divestment
- O'Malley Oct 28: supports divestment
- Clinton Dec 3: "I would like to see more investment decisions moving toward clean, renewable energy and away from fossil fuels" but responsibly
Exxon investigations
- O'Malley Oct 16 tweet: "We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer. Let's do the same for oil companies & climate change. https://omly.us/1RfPi0U"
- Sanders Oct 20: Calls for Federal investigation of Exxon's climate crimes
- Clinton Oct 29: "there's a lot of evidence they misled people"
- Dec 8: "Exxon Mobil funded all of this climate research, like starting 30, 35 years ago, and guess what! Their scientists found out that fossil fuels contributed to greenhouse gas emissions which contributed to global warming. Those were Exxon Mobil scientists who made that report. And then the company decided to try to just keep sixin'."
Offshore drilling in the Atlantic
- O'Malley Feb 2015: "very much opposed to drilling off the Atlantic coast"
- Sanders Nov 4: introduces "Keep It In The Ground" Act, banning all new fossil fuel extraction on public lands, including offshore drilling in the Atlantic.
- Clinton Dec 16: "I was doing a phone interview with, in South Carolina, I am, you know, not in favor of drilling off our coast"
- Clinton Dec 16: "very skeptical about need or desire for us to pursue offshore drilling"
Campaign contributions from fossil fuel industry
- Sanders/O'Malley July 6/7: sign pledge to refuse fossil fuel industry contributions
- Clinton Dec 16: vows to look into FFI contributions "Well I'm gonna take a look, you're asking me a question I never paid attention to because they don't actually come and talk to me. I think they think I'm a lost cause, which I probably am."
GOP Questions and Answers
Ben Carson
9/30/15
Marco Rubio
1/8/16
"[The Exxon Investigation] is nothing but a left wing effort to demonize industries in America."
11/4/15
"It doesn't matter" if fossil fuels cause climate change.
John Kasich
1/8/16
Chris Christie
1/6/16
"No I won't ban fossil fuel extraction because it's a stupid idea."
Jeb Bush
11/3/15
"[Burning fossil fuels] has also seen a reduction in the amount of carbon emitted."
1/12/16
PAST RELEASES:
January 22, 2016: Video: Asked About Fracking, Clinton Refuses to Take Strong Position
January 21, 2016: Sanders Strongly Against Fracking, Says He Would Shut Down Porter Ranch Well
January 13, 2016: Video: Ted Cruz Stands with ExxonMobil on Climate Denial
January 11, 2016: Video: Kasich Hints to Why GOP Candidates, Republicans Deny Climate Science
December 17, 2015: Hillary Clinton Opposes All Offshore Drilling, Vows to Look Into Fossil Fuel Industry Donations
November 5, 2015: Marco Rubio Says Climate Change "Doesn't Matter"
November 4, 2015: "Keep It In the Ground Act" Raises the Bar for Presidential Leadership on Climate
October 29, 2015: Hillary Clinton Calls for Federal Investigation of Exxon
January 21, 2015: 350 ACTION RESPONDS TO SENATE VOTE ON SCHATZ KXL AMENDMENT
350 Action is the independent political action arm of the non-profit, non-partisan climate justice group 350.org.
LATEST NEWS
'Confirming Everything We Knew Already': Docs Show Trump Admin Targeted Gaza Activists for Their Opinions
Unsealed internal documents affirmed that the administration arrested and sought to deport pro-Palestine activists "solely on protected expression," as one rights group put it.
Jan 23, 2026
A federal judge on Thursday unsealed documents showing that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally approved the deportation of university students after receiving memos highlighting their involvement in constitutionally protected campus protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Massachusetts-based Senior Judge William G. Young—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—unsealed 105 pages of documents he initially kept under wraps because they contained details regarding federal investigations. Young granted a request by media outlets including the New York Times to unseal the files as a matter of public interest.
Last year, Young ruled that the Trump administration broke the law by targeting pro-Palestine student activists in a bid to “unconstitutionally... chill freedom of speech.”
The unsealed documents include Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memos recommending that five student activists who were legally in the United States—Yunseo Chung, Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Badar Khan Suri, and Rümeysa Öztürk—be deported, despite there being no evidence of wrongdoing.
"There are few things more un-American than masked agents throwing dissenters in the back of a van because the government doesn’t like what they have to say," Conor Fitzpatrick, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)—which sued the administration over the unconstitutionality of its efforts—said Friday in a statement.
"But these documents prove that it was the students’ opinions alone, and not any criminal activity, that led to handcuffs and deportation proceedings," Fitzpatrick added. "The First Amendment means the government cannot punish speakers for their opinions, but that is exactly what the government is doing."
As the Times reported Friday:
The documents indicate that in nearly all instances, the arrests of the students were recommended based on their involvement in campus protests and public writings, activities that the Trump administration routinely equated to antisemitic hate speech and support for terrorist organizations. They also show that officials privately anticipated the possibility that the deportations might not hold up in court because much of the conduct highlighted could be seen as protected speech.
“Given the potential that a court may consider his actions inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment, it is likely that courts will scrutinize the basis for this determination,” stated one memo on Madhawi, a Columbia University student and permanent US resident.
In another document, Trump administration officials admitted there were no grounds for deporting the students, but noted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which empowers the secretary of state to expel noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to US foreign policy interests.
Rubio cited the law to target pro-Palestine students for deportation, a stance that was rebuked in a June 2025 ruling from US District Judge Michael Farbiarz, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, who found that Khalil's "career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled" by the Trump administration's actions.
In May 2025, US District Judge William Sessions III—who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton—ordered the release of Öztürk. The Turkish PhD student at Tufts University was illegally snatched off a Massachusetts street in March 2025 and taken to a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lockup in Louisiana after she published an opinion piece in a student newspaper advocating divestment from apartheid Israel.
"There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed,” Sessions wrote in his ruling.
One of the newly unsealed State Department documents states that DHS and ICE have "not provided any evidence showing that Öztürk has engaged in any antisemitic activity or made any public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization or antisemitism generally."
Fitzpatrick stressed that "this can't happen in a free society."
"It can’t happen in a free America," he added. "We’ll continue to fight this egregious violation of the Constitution every step of the way."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stunning Abdication of Basic Human Decency': Trump Ripped for Expanding Global Gag Rule
"President Trump and his anti-abortion administration would rather let people starve to death in the wake of famine and war than let anyone in the world get an abortion—or even receive information about it."
Jan 23, 2026
As US Vice President JD Vance on Friday addressed anti-abortion activists at the March for Life, public health and reproductive rights advocates decried the Trump administration's expansion of the Mexico City Policy, which critics call the global gag rule.
Since the Reagan administration, Democrats have repealed and Republicans have reimposed the policy, which bans nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion from receiving federal funding. While President Donald Trump reinstated it as expected after returning to office last year, multiple media outlets revealed the expansion plans on Thursday.
A spokesperson confirmed to NBC News on Friday that the US Department of State will release three final rules expanding the foreign assistance prohibition to include "gender ideology," and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), or what the administration is calling "discriminatory equity ideology," in line with various other Trump policies.
"President Trump and his anti-abortion administration would rather let people starve to death in the wake of famine and war than let anyone in the world get an abortion—or even receive information about it," Rachana Desai Martin, chief US program officer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a Friday statement.
"People are already dying because of this administration's slashing of foreign assistance," she noted. "Now, they're making it harder for doctors and aid workers to provide food, water, and lifesaving medical care. This isn't about saving lives—it's a stunning abdication of basic human decency."
Guttmacher Institute director of federal policy Amy Friedrich-Karnik similarly called out not only the new "supercharged global gag rule" but also the second Trump administration's "unprecedented actions like the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and rescission of US foreign assistance for family planning services around the world."
"Guttmacher research estimates that almost 50 million women and girls have already been denied contraceptive care in low- and middle-income countries due to these draconian actions," she explained. "This new radical policy threatens to aggravate the cumulative harms of earlier administration actions, undermining decades of bipartisan investment in global health and gender equality, and stripping resources from the world's most vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ+ communities around the world."
Amnesty International's senior director for research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, Erika Guevara-Rosas, blasted the expansion as "an assault on human rights" that will be "disastrous and deadly."
"It strangles healthcare systems, censors information, and violates the rights to health, information, and free expression," she stressed. "It forces frontline providers and many struggling organizations that depend on US funding into an impossible choice: limit essential healthcare for the most vulnerable populations or shut their doors."
"Doubling down on this policy is cruel, reckless, and ideologically driven," she continued. "Expanding it to international and US-based organizations will impact the poorest and marginalized first and hardest, denying people the chance to live full, healthy, autonomous lives where they are able to access rights and services. It is further proof of this US administration's blatant disregard for international law, universal rights, and the rules-based international order."
Dr. Anu Kumar, president and CEO of Ipas, which works to increase access to abortion and contraception around the world, declared that "this radically expanded global gag rule is nothing short of a regressive, harmful policy that puts the United States even further out of step with our global counterparts."
"Bullying individual countries' governments into complying with anti-rights and extremist ideology held by the current US administration is despicable and unacceptable," Kumar asserted. "It will wreak havoc on global efforts to improve health, uphold human rights, and achieve gender equality."
The broadening of the global gag rule comes as survivors and US lawmakers continue to fight for the release of files from the federal trafficking investigation into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of Trump. Mina Barling, the International Planned Parenthood Federation's global director of external relations, said that "in an age of Epstein scandals and hocus-pocus designed to undermine science and medicine, the Trump administration has read the room."
"He knows his obsession with women's bodies is viewed cynically, so he has utilized the man-made panic funded by the fossil fuel industry to shift the focus of his policy against trans people," Barling said of the president. "The global gag rule is hate-bait designed to keep his donors happy and export more division to countries reliant on US aid, in the absence of economic justice."
"We stand in solidarity with women and trans people in all their diversity," she added. "We demand debt relief, and we support national sovereignty. We want to see a new global health architecture that is less susceptible to the whims of American politicians."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Groundbreaking': Michigan Sues Big Oil 'Cartel' for Conspiracy to Block Renewable Energy
The case accuses "four of the largest energy companies in the world" of conspiring "to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy and maintain their dominance in the energy market."
Jan 23, 2026
While several US states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies by citing consumer protection and public nuisance laws, Michigan on Friday launched an antitrust lawsuit against four industry giants and their trade association, accusing them of operating as a "cartel" to impede a transition to clean power and transportation.
Twenty months after state Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that she was seeking proposals from lawyers and firms "to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry," the Democrat sued BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
"Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket, and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation. Whether you own a home, a small business, or run a large corporation, rising energy and transportation costs harm everyone," Nessel said in a statement.
"These out-of-control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings," she continued.
As the complaint says: "Defendants are four of the largest energy companies in the world and their industry's largest trade association. The fossil fuel defendants produce fossil fuels and have at times invested in clean energy products and related technologies, such as solar power and batteries, that could provide energy to power buildings, infrastructure, and cars as an alternative to fossil fuels."
"But for decades, defendants have conspired with each other to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy and maintain their dominance in the energy market," the filing continues. "They have done so as a cartel, agreeing to reduce the production and distribution of electricity from renewable sources and to restrain the emergence of electric vehicles (EV) and renewable primary energy technologies in the United States."
"To achieve this end," the document details, "they have abandoned renewable energy projects, used patent litigation to hinder rivals, suppressed information concerning the hidden costs of fossil fuels and viability of alternatives, infiltrated and knowingly misdirected information-producing institutions, surveilled and intimidated watchdogs and public officials, and used trade associations to coordinate market-wide efforts to divert capital expenditures away from renewable energy—all to further one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history."
Lumping in this case with others previously filed against fossil fuel companies and API, Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for the trade group, said in a statement to the Detroit News that "these baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America's economy, and is actively reducing emissions."
While Shell declined to comment to Reuters, and BP and Exxon did not respond, a lawyer for Chevron, Theodore Boutrous Jr., similarly called the suit "baseless as demonstrated by multiple related court dismissals," and told the news agency that it "ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state's automakers and workers."
According to Nessel's complaint: "In the world that would have existed but for defendants' conspiracy, EVs would not be a fringe technology or a luxury alternative. They would be a common sight in every neighborhood—rolling off assembly lines in Flint, parked in driveways in Dearborn, charging outside grocery stores in Grand Rapids, and running quietly down Woodward Avenue."
"Reliable and fast chargers would be integrated into new development and ubiquitous at highway rest stops and converted gas stations," it states. "A family needing a car would have dozens of affordable electric options, and the renewable energy needed to power EVs efficiently would be supplied at scale—integrated into the grid or delivered through a dedicated 100% renewable network—spurred by public and private investment responding to competitive market signals."
"Michiganders would also have additional, renewable energy options for providing primary energy to their homes and businesses, such as solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal; these options would improve reliability, reduce costs to Michiganders, and reduce reliance on natural gas, fuel oil, and propane," the document adds.
Tim Minotas, legislative and political director for Sierra Club Michigan, welcomed the filing. He said in a statement that "at a time when the federal government is rolling back critical environmental protections and families are facing an energy affordability crisis, we commend Attorney General Nessel for standing up for Michiganders and holding major fossil fuel companies accountable."
"In Michigan, these companies have used their outsized political influence to preserve the status quo and pave the way for a wave of energy-intensive data center projects across the state, even as renewable energy remains the cheapest source of new power and what Michiganders deserve," he noted. "For far too long, fossil fuel and utility companies have polluted Michigan's air, water, and land while driving up energy costs for families. This action sends a clear message: Michigan families and communities must come before corporate profits."
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, also celebrated the development: "Michigan's groundbreaking case reveals how the Big Oil cartel conspired to deny Americans cleaner and cheaper energy choices and make life less affordable by keeping consumers hooked on their dirty fossil fuel products. Eleven states and dozens of municipalities are now fighting to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and make them pay for the harm they've caused."
"Big Oil is desperate to keep the evidence of their climate lies from juries in cases like Michigan's, and that's why the fossil fuel industry is now lobbying Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card," Wiles added, pointing to a push for a so-called liability shield. "Congress must protect the right of the people of Michigan and every state to hold Big Oil accountable for the harm their climate lies have caused."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular