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.
Sunrise L.A. Youth, a hub of the national Sunrise Movement, marched and protested outside CNN's Los Angeles offices Thursday to demand the outlet "Cover the Crisis" of climate change more thoroughly. (Photo: Sunrise L.A. Youth/Twitter)
As wildfires continue to rage across the western United States and hurricanes barrel towards the East Coast, a new report out Thursday says voters want the media to do a better job at covering the climate crisis and connecting the dots between extreme weather events and climate change.
"The media has a responsibility to inform viewers of the connections between climate change and the increasingly unstable world around them," wrote Dr. Genevieve Gunther, Danielle Deiseroth, and Marcela Mulholland in a summary of the research conducted by Data for Progress and End Climate Silence. "It's not just climate activists and policy wonks that want to see this kind of coverage; our polling shows that a broad-base of voters do too."
While plenty of coverage of extreme weather events such as hurricanes exists, what does not is the connection to the climate crisis in the same reporting, the authors wrote. For example, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired a combined 50 segments on Hurricane Laura, yet not one connected the storm to climate change.
"Media coverage is critical in determining how the public perceives climate change," they continued. "To give voters the information they need to make political decisions in an increasingly chaotic world, the media must cover the climate crisis with the accuracy and urgency it deserves."
According to the report, a Data for Progress poll found that more than seven in 10 Americans (72%) say that if there is a connection between an extreme weather event and climate change, they want to hear about it in the news. This includes 85% of Democrats, 59% of independents, and 62% of Republicans surveyed. Additionally, poll results showed 75% of Americans think it's important for news coverage of extreme weather to explain its connections to climate change.
"The science and reality couldn't be clearer--climate-fueled planetary emergency is the context in which all issues now exist," the report's authors wrote. "Journalists would be wise to frame their reporting with this in mind. They can feel confident that it is not only the right thing to do, but also what voters want."
The poll results came as climate activists from the Sunrise Movement protested outside CNN's Los Angeles offices to demand they "Cover the Crisis" of climate change.
"We're here to hold the journalists at CNN to a higher standard and demand that they address the climate crisis with the urgency that is necessary to ensure a livable future for young people," Claire Donahue, a 17-year-old activist, said according to a statement from Sunrise L.A. Youth. "We've seen the course of history changed when journalists have the courage to call out injustice which is why we are demanding that CNN take bold, transformative action to address the climate crisis."
Sunrise Movement tweeted about the Data for Progress study on Thursday and called for moderators of presidential debates to press candidates on the issue.
\u201cAs fires devastate the west, the media is letting Trump off the hook, and if they repeat 2016, there won\u2019t be a single question about climate change at a Presidential debate. \n\nDemand the debate moderators climate change at the center of the debates: https://t.co/ve8ZcWAeaA\u201d— Sunrise Movement \ud83c\udf05 (@Sunrise Movement \ud83c\udf05) 1600437335
During a CNN town hall Thursday night, Anderson Cooper pressed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on fracking--a practice linked to methane spikes in the earth's atmosphere which the former vice president has said he will not ban.
"You said you won't ban fracking but that you wanted to gradually move away from it, ultimately," Cooper said to Biden. "It sounds like, to some, you are trying to have it both ways. Politically, it's understandable why you might say that, but if fracking contributes to climate change and climate change is an existential threat, why should it, fracking, continue at all?"
Biden responded that fracking "has to continue because we need a transition."
"We're going to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and we'll get to net-zero power emissions by 2035," the candidate said. "But there is no rationale to eliminate, right now, fracking."
On Monday, during a speech about the wildfires on the West Coast, Biden called climate-change denier President Donald Trump a "climate arsonist."
In an op-ed last week in The Boston Globe, End Climate Silence director Gunther wrote that because Republican lawmakers have attacked existing climate science, broadcast news outlets may fear retribution if they cover extreme weather in the context of the crisis.
"The first job of a free press is not to be intimidated by governmental threats meant to suppress the truths discovered by science--or any other truths, for that matter," she wrote. "And it's not to be manipulated into silence by special interests when news consumers want to understand the links between the disasters they fear and the climate change that's fueling them."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
As wildfires continue to rage across the western United States and hurricanes barrel towards the East Coast, a new report out Thursday says voters want the media to do a better job at covering the climate crisis and connecting the dots between extreme weather events and climate change.
"The media has a responsibility to inform viewers of the connections between climate change and the increasingly unstable world around them," wrote Dr. Genevieve Gunther, Danielle Deiseroth, and Marcela Mulholland in a summary of the research conducted by Data for Progress and End Climate Silence. "It's not just climate activists and policy wonks that want to see this kind of coverage; our polling shows that a broad-base of voters do too."
While plenty of coverage of extreme weather events such as hurricanes exists, what does not is the connection to the climate crisis in the same reporting, the authors wrote. For example, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired a combined 50 segments on Hurricane Laura, yet not one connected the storm to climate change.
"Media coverage is critical in determining how the public perceives climate change," they continued. "To give voters the information they need to make political decisions in an increasingly chaotic world, the media must cover the climate crisis with the accuracy and urgency it deserves."
According to the report, a Data for Progress poll found that more than seven in 10 Americans (72%) say that if there is a connection between an extreme weather event and climate change, they want to hear about it in the news. This includes 85% of Democrats, 59% of independents, and 62% of Republicans surveyed. Additionally, poll results showed 75% of Americans think it's important for news coverage of extreme weather to explain its connections to climate change.
"The science and reality couldn't be clearer--climate-fueled planetary emergency is the context in which all issues now exist," the report's authors wrote. "Journalists would be wise to frame their reporting with this in mind. They can feel confident that it is not only the right thing to do, but also what voters want."
The poll results came as climate activists from the Sunrise Movement protested outside CNN's Los Angeles offices to demand they "Cover the Crisis" of climate change.
"We're here to hold the journalists at CNN to a higher standard and demand that they address the climate crisis with the urgency that is necessary to ensure a livable future for young people," Claire Donahue, a 17-year-old activist, said according to a statement from Sunrise L.A. Youth. "We've seen the course of history changed when journalists have the courage to call out injustice which is why we are demanding that CNN take bold, transformative action to address the climate crisis."
Sunrise Movement tweeted about the Data for Progress study on Thursday and called for moderators of presidential debates to press candidates on the issue.
\u201cAs fires devastate the west, the media is letting Trump off the hook, and if they repeat 2016, there won\u2019t be a single question about climate change at a Presidential debate. \n\nDemand the debate moderators climate change at the center of the debates: https://t.co/ve8ZcWAeaA\u201d— Sunrise Movement \ud83c\udf05 (@Sunrise Movement \ud83c\udf05) 1600437335
During a CNN town hall Thursday night, Anderson Cooper pressed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on fracking--a practice linked to methane spikes in the earth's atmosphere which the former vice president has said he will not ban.
"You said you won't ban fracking but that you wanted to gradually move away from it, ultimately," Cooper said to Biden. "It sounds like, to some, you are trying to have it both ways. Politically, it's understandable why you might say that, but if fracking contributes to climate change and climate change is an existential threat, why should it, fracking, continue at all?"
Biden responded that fracking "has to continue because we need a transition."
"We're going to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and we'll get to net-zero power emissions by 2035," the candidate said. "But there is no rationale to eliminate, right now, fracking."
On Monday, during a speech about the wildfires on the West Coast, Biden called climate-change denier President Donald Trump a "climate arsonist."
In an op-ed last week in The Boston Globe, End Climate Silence director Gunther wrote that because Republican lawmakers have attacked existing climate science, broadcast news outlets may fear retribution if they cover extreme weather in the context of the crisis.
"The first job of a free press is not to be intimidated by governmental threats meant to suppress the truths discovered by science--or any other truths, for that matter," she wrote. "And it's not to be manipulated into silence by special interests when news consumers want to understand the links between the disasters they fear and the climate change that's fueling them."
As wildfires continue to rage across the western United States and hurricanes barrel towards the East Coast, a new report out Thursday says voters want the media to do a better job at covering the climate crisis and connecting the dots between extreme weather events and climate change.
"The media has a responsibility to inform viewers of the connections between climate change and the increasingly unstable world around them," wrote Dr. Genevieve Gunther, Danielle Deiseroth, and Marcela Mulholland in a summary of the research conducted by Data for Progress and End Climate Silence. "It's not just climate activists and policy wonks that want to see this kind of coverage; our polling shows that a broad-base of voters do too."
While plenty of coverage of extreme weather events such as hurricanes exists, what does not is the connection to the climate crisis in the same reporting, the authors wrote. For example, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired a combined 50 segments on Hurricane Laura, yet not one connected the storm to climate change.
"Media coverage is critical in determining how the public perceives climate change," they continued. "To give voters the information they need to make political decisions in an increasingly chaotic world, the media must cover the climate crisis with the accuracy and urgency it deserves."
According to the report, a Data for Progress poll found that more than seven in 10 Americans (72%) say that if there is a connection between an extreme weather event and climate change, they want to hear about it in the news. This includes 85% of Democrats, 59% of independents, and 62% of Republicans surveyed. Additionally, poll results showed 75% of Americans think it's important for news coverage of extreme weather to explain its connections to climate change.
"The science and reality couldn't be clearer--climate-fueled planetary emergency is the context in which all issues now exist," the report's authors wrote. "Journalists would be wise to frame their reporting with this in mind. They can feel confident that it is not only the right thing to do, but also what voters want."
The poll results came as climate activists from the Sunrise Movement protested outside CNN's Los Angeles offices to demand they "Cover the Crisis" of climate change.
"We're here to hold the journalists at CNN to a higher standard and demand that they address the climate crisis with the urgency that is necessary to ensure a livable future for young people," Claire Donahue, a 17-year-old activist, said according to a statement from Sunrise L.A. Youth. "We've seen the course of history changed when journalists have the courage to call out injustice which is why we are demanding that CNN take bold, transformative action to address the climate crisis."
Sunrise Movement tweeted about the Data for Progress study on Thursday and called for moderators of presidential debates to press candidates on the issue.
\u201cAs fires devastate the west, the media is letting Trump off the hook, and if they repeat 2016, there won\u2019t be a single question about climate change at a Presidential debate. \n\nDemand the debate moderators climate change at the center of the debates: https://t.co/ve8ZcWAeaA\u201d— Sunrise Movement \ud83c\udf05 (@Sunrise Movement \ud83c\udf05) 1600437335
During a CNN town hall Thursday night, Anderson Cooper pressed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on fracking--a practice linked to methane spikes in the earth's atmosphere which the former vice president has said he will not ban.
"You said you won't ban fracking but that you wanted to gradually move away from it, ultimately," Cooper said to Biden. "It sounds like, to some, you are trying to have it both ways. Politically, it's understandable why you might say that, but if fracking contributes to climate change and climate change is an existential threat, why should it, fracking, continue at all?"
Biden responded that fracking "has to continue because we need a transition."
"We're going to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and we'll get to net-zero power emissions by 2035," the candidate said. "But there is no rationale to eliminate, right now, fracking."
On Monday, during a speech about the wildfires on the West Coast, Biden called climate-change denier President Donald Trump a "climate arsonist."
In an op-ed last week in The Boston Globe, End Climate Silence director Gunther wrote that because Republican lawmakers have attacked existing climate science, broadcast news outlets may fear retribution if they cover extreme weather in the context of the crisis.
"The first job of a free press is not to be intimidated by governmental threats meant to suppress the truths discovered by science--or any other truths, for that matter," she wrote. "And it's not to be manipulated into silence by special interests when news consumers want to understand the links between the disasters they fear and the climate change that's fueling them."
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said one advocate.
The Trump administration's push for Americans to have more children has been well documented, from Vice President JD Vance's insults aimed at "childless cat ladies" to officials' meetings with "pronatalist" advocates who want to boost U.S. birth rates, which have been declining since 2007.
But a report released by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) on Wednesday details how the methods the White House have reportedly considered to convince Americans to procreate moremay be described by the far right as "pro-family," but are actually being pushed by a eugenicist, misogynist movement that has little interest in making it any easier to raise a family in the United States.
The proposals include bestowing a "National Medal of Motherhood" on women who have more than six children, giving a $5,000 "baby bonus" to new parents, and prioritizing federal projects in areas with high birth rates.
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said Emily Martin, chief program officer of the National Women's Law Center.
The report describes how "Silicon Valley tech elites" and traditional conservatives who oppose abortion rights and even a woman's right to work outside the home have converged to push for "preserving the traditional family structure while encouraging women to have a lot of children."
With pronatalists often referring to "declining genetic quality" in the U.S. and promoting the idea that Americans must produce "good quality children," in the words of evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman, the pronatalist movement "is built on racist, sexist, and anti-immigrant ideologies."
If conservatives are concerned about population loss in the U.S., the report points out, they would "make it easier for immigrants to come to the United States to live and work. More immigrants mean more workers, which would address some of the economic concerns raised by declining birth rates."
But pronatalists "only want to see certain populations increase (i.e., white people), and there are many immigrants who don't fit into that narrow qualification."
The report, titled "Baby Bonuses and Motherhood Medals: Why We Shouldn't Trust the Pronatalist Movement," describes how President Donald Trump has enlisted a "pronatalist army" that's been instrumental both in pushing a virulently anti-immigrant, mass deportation agenda and in demanding that more straight couples should marry and have children, as the right-wing policy playbook Project 2025 demands.
Trump's former adviser and benefactor, billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, has spoken frequently about the need to prevent a collapse of U.S. society and civilization by raising birth rates, and has pushed misinformation fearmongering about birth control.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy proposed rewarding areas with high birth rates by prioritizing infrastructure projects, and like Vance has lobbed insults at single women while also deriding the use of contraception.
The report was released days after CNN detailed the close ties the Trump administration has with self-described Christian nationalist pastor Doug Wilson, who heads the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, preaches that women should not vote, and suggested in an interview with correspondent Pamela Brown that women's primary function is birthing children, saying they are "the kind of people that people come out of."
Wilson has ties to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose children attend schools founded by the pastor and who shared the video online with the tagline of Wilson's church, "All of Christ for All of Life."
But the NWLC noted, no amount of haranguing women over their relationship status, plans for childbearing, or insistence that they are primarily meant to stay at home with "four or five children," as Wilson said, can reverse the impact the Trump administration's policies have had on families.
"While the Trump administration claims to be pursuing a pro-baby agenda, their actions tell a different story," the report notes. "Rather than advancing policies that would actually support families—like lowering costs, expanding access to housing and food, or investing in child care—they've prioritized dismantling basic need supports, rolling back longstanding civil rights protections, and ripping away people's bodily autonomy."
The report was published weeks after Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law—making pregnancy more expensive and more dangerous for millions of low-income women by slashing Medicaid funding and "endangering the 42 million women and children" who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for their daily meals.
While demanding that women have more children, said the NWLC, Trump has pushed an "anti-women, anti-family agenda."
Martin said that unlike the pronatalist movement, "a real pro-family agenda would include protecting reproductive healthcare, investing in childcare as a public good, promoting workplace policies that enable parents to succeed, and ensuring that all children have the resources that they need to thrive not just at birth, but throughout their lives."
"The administration's deep hostility toward these pro-family policies," said Martin, "tells you all that you need to know about pronatalists' true motives.”
A Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer called on Kathy Jennings to "use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza."
A leading U.S. legal advocacy group on Wednesday urged Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings to pursue revoking the corporate charter of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, whose aid distribution points in the embattled Palestinian enclave have been the sites of near-daily massacres in which thousands of Palestinians have reportedly been killed or wounded.
Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urgently requested a meeting with Jennings, a Democrat, whom the group asserted has a legal obligation to file suit in the state's Chancery Court to seek revocation of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) charter because the purported charity "is complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide."
CCR said Wednesday that Jennings "has neither responded" to the group's request "nor publicly addressed the serious claims raised against the Delaware-registered entity."
"GHF woefully fails to adhere to fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence and has proven to be an opportunistic and obsequious entity masquerading as a humanitarian organization," CCR asserted. "Since the start of its operations in late May, at least 1,400 Palestinians have died seeking aid, with at least 859 killed at or near GHF sites, which it operates in close coordination with the Israeli government and U.S. private military contractors."
One of those contractors, former U.S. Army Green Beret Col. Anthony Aguilar, quit his job and blew the whistle on what he said he saw while working at GHF aid sites.
"What I saw on the sites, around the sites, to and from the sites, can be described as nothing but war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international law," Aguilar told Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman earlier this month. "This is not hyperbole. This is not platitudes or drama. This is the truth... The sites were designed to lure, bait aid, and kill."
Israel Defense Forces officers and soldiers have admitted to receiving orders to open fire on Palestinian aid-seekers with live bullets and artillery rounds, even when the civilians posed no security threat.
"It is against this backdrop that [President Donald] Trump's State Department approved a $30 million United States Agency for International Development grant for GHF," CCR noted. "In so doing, the State Department exempted it from the audit usually required for new USAID grantees."
"It also waived mandatory counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards and overrode vetting mechanisms, including 58 internal objections to GHF's application," the group added. "The Center for Constitutional Rights has submitted a [Freedom of Information Act] request seeking information on the administration's funding of GHF."
CCR continued:
The letter to Jennings opens a new front in the effort to hold GHF accountable. The Center for Constitutional Rights letter provides extensive evidence that, far from alleviating suffering in Gaza, GHF is contributing to the forced displacement, illegal killing, and genocide of Palestinians, while serving as a fig leaf for Israel's continued denial of access to food and water. Given this, Jennings has not only the authority, but the obligation to investigate GHF to determine if it abused its charter by engaging in unlawful activity. She may then file suit with the Court of Chancery, which has the authority to revoke GHF's charter.
CCR's August 5 letter notes that Jennings has previously exercised such authority. In 2019, she filed suit to dissolve shell companies affiliated with former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Richard Gates after they pleaded guilty to money laundering and other crimes.
"Attorney General Jennings has the power to significantly change the course of history and save lives by taking action to dissolve GHF," said CCR attorney Adina Marx-Arpadi. "We call on her to use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza, and to do so without delay."
CCR's request follows a call earlier this month by a group of United Nations experts for the "immediate dismantling" of GHF, as well as "holding it and its executives accountable and allowing experienced and humanitarian actors from the U.N. and civil society alike to take back the reins of managing and distributing lifesaving aid."
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," said the CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
Multiple nations, as well as climate and environmental activists, are expressing dismay at the current state of a potential treaty to curb global plastics pollution.
As The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, negotiators of the treaty are discussing a new draft that would contain no restrictions on plastic production or on the chemicals used in plastics. This draft would adopt the approach favored by many big oil-producing nations who have argued against limits on plastic production and have instead pushed for measures such as better design, recycling, and reuse.
This new draft drew the ire of several nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America, who all said that it was too weak in addressing the real harms being done by plastic pollution.
"Let me be clear—this is not acceptable for future generations," said Erin Silsbe, the representative for Canada.
According to a report from Health Policy Watch, Panama delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey got a round of applause from several other delegates in the room when he angrily denounced the new draft.
"Our red lines, and the red lines of the majority of countries represented in this room, were not only expunged, they were spat on, and they were burned," he fumed.
Several advocacy organizations were even more scathing in their assessments.
Eirik Lindebjerg, the global plastics policy adviser for WWF, bluntly said that "this is not a treaty" but rather "a devastating blow to everyone here and all those around the world suffering day in and day out as a result of plastic pollution."
"It lacks the bare minimum of measures and accountability to actually be effective, with no binding global bans on harmful products and chemicals and no way for it to be strengthened over time," Lindebjerg continued. "What's more it does nothing to reflect the ambition and demands of the majority of people both within and outside the room. This is not what people came to Geneva for. After three years of negotiations, this is deeply concerning."
Steve Trent, the CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, declared the new draft "nothing short of a betrayal" and encouraged delegates from around the world to roundly reject it.
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," he said. "The failure now risks being total, with the text actively backsliding rather than improving."
According to the Center for International Environmental Law, at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the talks in Switzerland, meaning they "outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the E.U."
Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy's ocean plastics program, similarly called the new draft "unacceptable" and singled out that the latest text scrubbed references to abandoned or discarded plastic fishing gear, commonly referred to as "ghost gear," which he described as "the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life."
"The science is clear: To reduce plastic pollution, we must make and use less plastic to begin with, so a treaty without reduction is a failed treaty," Mallos emphasized.