August, 26 2009, 10:39am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kassie
Siegel, Center for Biological Diversity, 760-366-2232 x302
(office),
951-961-7972
(mobile), ksiegel@biologicaldiversity.
Nick
Berning, Friends of the Earth, 202-222-0748 (office), 703-587-4454 (mobile), nberning@foe.org
300+ Groups Ask Senate for Stronger Climate Bill
Broad alliance expresses concern with House legislation and demands improvements
WASHINGTON
A
broad coalition of more than 300 faith, human rights, social justice, and
environmental groups sent a
letter to U.S. senators
today calling for energy and climate legislation that is much stronger than
the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House of Representatives June 26. That
bill contained massive giveaways to polluting special interests and would fail
to ensure a rapid transition to clean energy.
The
groups plan to hand deliver the letter to senators' state offices next week as
part of a larger, grassroots mobilization demonstrating far-reaching support for
bold leadership in the fight to solve the climate crisis.
In
the letter, the groups express "profound concern" about the House bill and ask
senators to usher in "the transformational change and greenhouse emissions
reductions required to avert catastrophic climate impacts." The letter calls for
legislation that
-
Reduces
atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a safe level of below 350 parts per
million; -
Maintains
existing Clean Air Act protections against global warming
pollution; -
Minimizes
the use of offsets and other loopholes; -
Protects
vulnerable populations and communities; -
Promotes
abundant clean energy; -
Eliminates
polluter giveaways; and -
Adheres
to preexisting U.S. commitments to the rest of the
world.
Comments
from a few groups that signed the letter follow:
"We
haven't yet seen the bold leadership from Congress that's required to solve the
climate crisis," said Church World
Service Director of Education and Advocacy Rajyashri Waghray. "We're sending
this letter to demonstrate broad grassroots support for such
leadership."
"We have to have a stronger
climate bill than the watered-down version that passed the House," said San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
Conservation Chair Drew Feldmann.
"We're
organizing on the ground, in communities around/throughout the country, to
mobilize the everyday people who will feel climate impacts, and to defeat the
entrenched, polluting special interests in Washington and pass a truly strong bill in the
Senate," said Appalachian Voices
Legislative Associate JW Randolph.
"The everyday people of
America have been left out of the
climate debate. We are building a grassroots movement that reflects the
diversity of America, to mobilize everyday people
who are experiencing the affects of climate change. We aim to defeat entrenched
fossil fuel polluting special interests in Washington and pass a truly strong climate
bill," said Tom Goldtooth of the
Indigenous Environmental Network.
"There's
an impressive breadth of groups on this letter, and it demonstrates that the
status quo isn't acceptable. Congress must pass a bill that actually gives us a
fighting chance of avoiding runaway global warming. There's no other option,"
said Tyson Slocum, who directs Public
Citizen's energy program.
Other organizations
signing the letter include 350.org, the Center for Biological Diversity, Center
on Race Poverty and the Environment, Central California Environmental Justice
Network, Corporate Ethics International, CREDO, Communities for a Better
Environment, Franciscan Sisters of Mary, Friends Committee on National
Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Global Exchange, Greenpeace, International
Rivers, Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility United Church of
Christ, Rainforest Action Network, the Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations, and many others.
The letter and full list of signers can be viewed at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/action/toolbox/ACESA/sign-on_letter.html.
LATEST NEWS
Less Than 25% of Americans Support Trump Attack on Iran: Poll
"If this goes on... this is going to become a political disaster," said one foreign policy expert.
Mar 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's war in Iran is extraordinarily unpopular, according to a poll conducted shortly after the US and Israel carried out massive strikes on the country Saturday.
The survey, conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, found that just 27% of voters approved of the strikes, which have killed at least 555 Iranians as of Monday morning and resulted in retaliation from Iran that has killed at least four US service members, with more casualties expected according to a spokesperson for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Meanwhile, 43% of respondents disapproved of the military action, while 29% said they were not sure.
A majority of Republicans said they approved of the strikes, with 55% expressing support. Still, 13% disapproved, and a noteworthy 31% said they were unsure.
Approval is dismal with nearly everyone else. Only 19% of independents expressed support compared to 44% who disapproved. And though Democratic leaders in Congress have done little to stand in the way of the strikes, their voters are overwhelmingly against them: 74% said they disapproved, while just 7% approved.
The poll reflects a wider skepticism of US military intervention, with 56% of respondents saying the president was too quick to deploy military force in recent months, including in Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria.
Compared with previous US military interventions in the Middle East, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which—at least at their outset—enjoyed broad support from the American public following intense government efforts to drum up support, there has been little effort by the Trump administration to define the purpose of war with Iran.
Trump's justification for launching the war has shifted wildly since he began amassing troops in the region. Trump has most recently said the strikes were intended to stop an "imminent threat" from Iran; meanwhile, the Pentagon has told Congress there was no sign Iran was planning an attack unless the US did so first.
The president previously said his push for war was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, an assertion at odds with his claim that his strikes in June "obliterated" the country's nuclear capabilities.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that Trump's shifting explanations reek of "desperation."
"It's very clear that Trump has a tremendous difficulty finding a justification for this war of choice that he's embarked on," he said. "The reality is that if this goes on for another week or two, this is going to become a political disaster."
"So now he's suddenly, desperately, using all kinds of justifications: Liberating the Iranian people, Iran is fighting against civilization," Parsi said. "If he actually had a case, he would have stuck to that point and made it clearly. But he doesn't have one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Call Grows to Impeach Trump, 'The Most Dangerous Man on the Planet'
"Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law," said one pair of campaigners, "establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life."
Mar 02, 2026
After the unprovoked bombing of Iran over the weekend by the United States and Israel—strikes that included the unlawful assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei—the call for US President Donald Trump to be impeached and removed from office has grown as the straightest path to hold the US leader to account for the attacks which policy and human rights experts have condemned as a serious war crime.
With a regional war in the Middle East that was already boiling from Gaza to Lebanon and from Syria to Yemen now exploding in the wake of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Globe and Mail columnist Debra Thompson on Sunday called Trump "the most dangerous man on the planet."
"Rather than ending wars," Thompson notes, "Trump has initiated military action eight times, carrying out attacks in seven countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela) in 2025." Such a pattern of violence and warmongering should make clear that failure to restrain Trump has only emboldened him.
"The recurring danger in this latest presidential aggression is that there are no guardrails, no constraints, and no post-hoc justification," writes Thomson, "other than that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States and can do whatever he wants."
But American presidents cannot simply do whatever they want. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll out Sunday, less than 25% support the president's aggression against Iran. In the first wave of the US military attack, an Iranian school for girls was bombed, killing over 108 civilians, mostly children.
While some congressional lawmakers are pushing for a vote this week on a War Powers Resolution to curtail US military operations against Iran, others are demanding more robust action from Congress to bring Trump's war-making to an end.
"Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, as well as to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and fund and regulate the military," declared novelist and political activists Stephen King on Saturday. "Impeach the SOB."
Mike Hersh and Alan Minsky, respectively the communications director and executive director of the Progressive Democrats of America, argued in a Sunday op-ed for Common Dreams that "Trump's illegal, unconstitutional war on Iran is not only a moral and humanitarian disaster, but also a profound constitutional crisis."
According to Hersh and Minsky:
Trump’s illegal war on Iran and the rule of law establish an intolerable pattern of egregious abuses of power, directly threatening our constitutional order, our safety, and our way of life. These intertwined crises cry out for an immediate, decisive response by the Congress and the US public.
Therefore, PDA demands that all members of Congress, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, uphold their oath of office to defend our constitutional republic. The Constitution offers one and only one remedy when President a repeatedly breaks the law and arrogantly refuses to abide by the limits on the power clearly laid out in the Constitution. That remedy is impeachment, followed by removal from office.
Matt Duss, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy, said that US lawmakers, as well as the American people they represent, "must also be ready to hold the president and his administration accountable for this breach of US and international law."
"The failure to hold past presidents liable for war crimes and related violations of our own laws has helped lead to this dangerous moment, with a seemingly unrestrained president endangering millions of lives with impunity," warned Duss. "The forever wars and the imperial presidency must finally come to an end.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


