

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.
Caitlin Leutwiler, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-3226
John Kostyack, National Wildlife Federation, (202) 797-6879
David Moulton, The Wilderness Society, (202) 429-2681
Forrest McCarthy, Outdoor Alliance, (307) 733-3742
Rebecca Judd, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500
Amy Kober, American Rivers, (503) 827-8648
Mark Wenzler, National Parks Conservation Association, (202) 454-3335
Chip Weiskotten, Wildlife Conservation Society, (202) 624-8172
Summary:
* The federal Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force today delivered a report to President Obama affirming the need to develop a national strategy for helping wildlife and natural resources adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.
* More than 20 federal agencies and departments participated in the Task Force, led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through a series of listening sessions across the country, the Task Force also gathered input from the public and communities already feeling the effects of climate change.
* The final Task Force report calls for integration of climate change adaptation planning across federal government programs; more coordinated science applied to decision-making; addressing cross-cutting issues including water resource management, public health, insurance programs, coastal areas, wildlife and habitat, and the protection of communities; better coordination and collaboration of responses to climate change; and enhanced efforts to lead and support international adaptation.
The following are statements from Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society, Outdoor Alliance, Earthjustice, American Rivers, National Parks Conservation Association and the Wildlife Conservation Society:
"Melting sea ice increasingly threatens polar bears and walruses, warming-induced beetle outbreaks have destroyed millions of acres of forests and drought in the Southwest is jeopardizing many species of fish," said Noah Matson, vice president of climate change and natural resource adaptation at Defenders of Wildlife. "We rely on nature to survive, from the air we breathe, to the water we drink and the food we eat. It is critical that the government develop a national strategy to address the impacts of climate change on our planet before it is too late - not just for polar bears and walrus but for us too."
"Virtually every institution, public and private, will need to change the way it does business to address global warming and the related problem of ocean acidification," said John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation. "Everyone has a moral responsibility not only to reduce the pollution that causes these problems, but also to help reduce the suffering from pollution already deposited into the atmosphere and oceans. We hope that President Obama takes these recommendations seriously and moves quickly to safeguard communities and ecosystems from harmful climate change impacts."
"A national adaptation strategy can help our communities cope with both the economic and climate crises we face," said David Moulton, director of climate change policy at The Wilderness Society. "We must make dramatic carbon pollution cuts if we are to stave off climate change's worst effects, but ramping up adaptation efforts will create and protect jobs across the country today while protecting our natural resources and communities tomorrow. Dollar for dollar, investing in jobs that build natural resilience to climate change return greater dividends than nearly any other economic sector. Now, more than ever, it's time for this administration to jumpstart our economy and protect our communities by putting Americans to work keeping our forests, coastlines, rivers and other wildlands healthy in a warming world."
According to Outdoor Alliance's Climate Change Coordinator Forrest McCarthy "Declining snowpack shortens ski and snowshoe seasons, makes alpine climbing more dangerous and can eliminate ice climbing. Less snowpack means less water in our creeks, rivers and lakes for paddling. Higher temperatures and prolonged droughts impact the forests, mountains, deserts, and rivers where we recreate, degrading and in some cases even eliminating opportunities for outdoor experience. The government needs to take prompt action in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as adapt to climate induced changes to the natural systems we all depend on."
"Because climate change is already here, we urge the Obama Administration to swiftly take the next step and issue more specific direction to its land management agencies in order to help wildlife and natural places better adapt to a rapidly changing environment," said Rebecca Judd, legislative counsel at Earthjustice. "When it comes to natural resources and climate change, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The clock is ticking and we need immediate, on-the-ground conservation measures, such as the reduction of human stressors like logging and overgrazing, the establishment of climate refugia and wildlife corridors, and the protection of intact watersheds."
"Climate change is the greatest threat to the future of our rivers, clean water, and native wildlife," said Andrew Fahlund, Senior Vice President for Conservation at American Rivers. "We are already seeing more frequent and severe floods and droughts and rising levels of water pollution. The increase in extreme weather is slowing economic growth, increasing waterborne disease and taking lives in communities across the country. To avoid the worst, we must take immediate action to reduce global warming pollution and prepare our communities and landscapes for the impacts that are already taking place."
"Drought, wildfire, invasive species and other consequences of climate change threaten not only our national parks but also the communities that rely on healthy, natural resources for their economic well-being," said Mark Wenzler, vice president of clean air and climate at the National Parks Conservation Association. "Better coordination among federal agencies is a first step toward combating these threats, but ultimately Congress and the Administration must put real money on the table to safeguard our forests, rivers, oceans, parks, and communities from climate change today, for future generations to enjoy tomorrow."
"The Task Force's findings reinforce the data our scientists are already seeing in the field: U.S. wildlife populations are dangerously imperiled due to the effects of climate change. We need a strategy to avoid the worst of the climate change impacts on our animals, plants and ecosystems," said Kelly Keenan Aylward, Washington Office Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society. "Local land managers and state agencies must be equipped with the tools to make the best adaptation decisions to benefit wildlife. A national strategy for collaboration, science and capacity-building on adaptation practices accomplishes this goal and positions us to better respond to the harmful impacts of climate change."
Read the Task Force's report here.
Learn more about how Defenders is working to protect wildlife and natural habitats from the harmful effects of climate change.
"Medicare for All, or endless foreign wars?" asked Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner. "Anyone in the House or Senate giving the wrong answer should lose their seat."
The daily price tag of US President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran would be enough to cover the daily costs of federal nutrition assistance for more than 40 million Americans, as well as daily Medicaid costs for the roughly 16 million people expected to lose health coverage due to the Republican budget package that Trump signed into law last year.
That's according to an analysis published Thursday by the National Priorities Project (NPP), which noted that—on an annual basis—the estimated $1 billion-per-day cost of the US war on Iran is "higher than the appropriated budget of any federal agency except the Pentagon itself."
"That money could cover the things we need here at home," wrote NPP's Alliyah Lusuegro and Lindsay Koshgarian. "The tradeoff is clear: the Trump administration—backed by several members of Congress—is cutting healthcare and food assistance for millions of families while spending $1 billion a day on this emerging war."
"The question isn’t whether the money exists—it's what we choose to spend it on," they wrote.
In a social media post on Friday, Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner—a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—posed what he characterized as a "simple question" to members of Congress: "Medicare for All, or endless foreign wars?"
"Anyone in the House or Senate giving the wrong answer," Platner added, "should lose their seat."
"The cost of the war in Iraq ended up being almost $3 trillion. This could be astronomical, easily.”
The Pentagon's early estimate of the Iran war's cost was first reported by Atlantic journalist Nancy Youssef, who cited an unnamed congressional official.
In a separate analysis released earlier this week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies put the cost of the first 100 hours of the Iran war at $3.7 billion, or $891.4 million per day. The Pentagon is reportedly planning to ask Congress to approve at least $50 billion in supplemental funding for the war, a historically unpopular assault that lawmakers did not authorize.
“Without support from the American people, Donald Trump led the country into a reckless war with Iran that has taken the lives of six service members and injured several others," said Kendall Witmer, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee. "Now, the White House is scrambling to come up with a plan as the cost of Trump’s war skyrockets. Working families are already struggling with soaring prices and a hollowed-out job market—they can't afford Trump’s war of choice."
On Thursday, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) asked the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to conduct a thorough analysis of the financial costs of the Iran war, including scenarios in which the assault drags on for more than five weeks and the US launches a ground invasion.
“Taxpayers deserve a nonpartisan estimate of the financial and economic impact of President Trump’s reckless war in Iran that has already led to the tragic deaths of American servicemembers," said Boyle. "American families don’t want billions of dollars wasted on an unnecessary war—they want lower costs and affordable healthcare.”
Koshgarian of NPP told CNN that the costs of war are "highly unpredictable, and so we won’t know the cost of it until it’s over."
"The cost of the war in Iraq ended up being almost $3 trillion,” Koshgarian said. “This could be astronomical, easily.”
"Republicans in Congress and President Trump are focused on spending $1 billion a day on a needless war with Iran that is already jacking up prices for Americans," noted one expert.
President Donald Trump made clear in a new interview with Politico that he either doesn't understand or won't accept the US public's response to his and Israel's war on Iran, which they're waging while Americans face rising unemployment and gasoline prices on top of high costs for other essentials, from groceries to housing.
According to Politico White House bureau chief Dasha Burns:
Speaking in a phone call Thursday, Trump was entirely on offense. He brushed off worries about the impact of the Iran war on gas prices and US ammunition reserves, and he insisted that the military onslaught was popular with voters. Many recent public polls show the opposite is true, although a survey released Thursday by Fox News found voters have mixed opinions on Iran...
"People are loving what's happening," Trump said. "We're taking out a threat to the United States of America, major threat... and doing it like nobody's ever seen before."
A roundup of recent polling collected and published Friday by Strength in Numbers data journalist G. Elliott Morris shows roughly half of Americans disapprove of the war on Iran, while only 38% approve.

Despite the polling, the GOP-controlled Congress has refused to rein in Trump's assault on Iran. Democratic US Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) and four Democrats in the House of Representatives—Congressmen Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Greg Landsman (Ohio), and Juan Vargas (Calif.)—voted with nearly all Republicans this week to block a pair of war powers resolutions.
In the interview with Politico, Trump described the Iranian military as "decimated," and said that "we'll work with the people and the regime to make sure that somebody gets there that can nicely build Iran but without nuclear weapons."
As of Thursday, the Iranian government put the death toll at 1,230 people, including around 175 killed in a reported "double-tap" strike on a girls' elementary school. Israel has denied responsibility and top US officials have only said they're looking into it. A New York Times analysis concluded that the United States was "most likely to have carried out the strike," which killed mostly children. According to Reuters, US investigators also believe that American forces were behind the bombing.
Separately, the Times reported that two boys' schools—one elementary and one middle—southwest of Tehran "appeared to have been damaged on Thursday during the bombing campaign being conducted by the United States and Israel," though unlike with the earlier attack in Minab, "there were no immediate reports of deaths or injuries."
In addition to discussing Iran, Trump told Politico that "Cuba's going to fall, too," but "they want to make a deal." He also addressed Venezuela, whose president was recently abducted by US forces and replaced with a deputy who agreed to let Trump control the nationalized oil industry; his frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who continues to combat a Russian invasion; and his recent spat with the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, which the president "fired" because of its refusal to let the Pentagon end the AI firm's policies against autonomous killer robots and mass surveillance of Americans.
With Trump focused on various conflicts abroad, Americans are contending with some of the consequences, including the impact on petroleum. Business Insider reported Friday that "the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline climbed to $3.32 on Friday, according to AAA—that's an 11.4% increase from last week's price and the highest level since August 2024."
Meanwhile, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed Friday that the US economy lost 92,000 jobs last month.
"Trump's reckless economic agenda has forced the labor market into the negative, threatening the livelihoods of American workers," responded Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who's now chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative. "As the president piles on blanket tariffs and oil prices soar, today's report confirms he's sent the economy straight into a stagflation spiral."
The new jobs data came after the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that a record number of US workers are raiding their retirement savings. The top reasons for the surge in 401(k) withdrawals were avoiding eviction or paying off medical expenses.
Americans are facing an even more dire healthcare situation this year, due to Medicaid cuts in Trump and congressional Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which also gave the rich more tax breaks—as well as their refusal to extend expired Affordable Care Act subsidies that helped tens of millions of people pay for health insurance.
"We should all be concerned about the slowing economy we've seen in the second Trump administration," Angela Hanks, a former Department of Labor official who's now chief of policy programs at the Century Foundation, said Friday. "The economy lost thousands of jobs this month including in healthcare and social services, the main sectors previously propping up the labor market."
"Healthcare, childcare, and manufacturing—sectors Americans rely on—all lost jobs last month with no plan from the Trump administration on how to fix it," Hanks added. "Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress and President Trump are focused on spending $1 billion a day on a needless war with Iran that is already jacking up prices for Americans."
“Not merely negative-number-so-what unpopular, but worst-ever-support-for-war-when-it-started unpopular.”
President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran is historically unpopular among US voters.
In an analysis published Friday, polling expert G. Elliott Morris calculated an average of eight high-quality polls conducted over the last week about the war and found just 38% of Americans approve of the military strikes against Iran, while 49% are opposed.
Morris noted that there is simply no precedent for a US war being this unpopular from the very outset.
"The big takeaway from these numbers is that the new war in Iran is very unpopular," he wrote. "Not merely negative-number-so-what unpopular, but worst-ever-support-for-war-when-it-started unpopular. With just 38% of Americans in favor, support for bombing Iran is lower than retrospective support for the war in Iraq was in 2014."
Morris then offered some comparisons to past US military conflicts to show that the lack of support for Trump's Iran war is simply in uncharted territory.
"No president in modern polling history has launched a major military operation with the public already against him," he wrote. "After the September 11 attacks, a November 2001 Gallup poll found 90% of Americans approved of military action in Afghanistan, with just 5% opposed. The Gulf War in 1991 hit 79-80% approval. Gallup measured 76% support for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Pew had it at 71%)."
Even comparatively unpopular operations, such as Trump's strikes against Syria in 2017 or former President Barack Obama's 2011 military operation in Libya, still had net-positive approvals at the times they occurred.
Morris added that Trump should be concerned about this because historically "wars only get less popular" over time as "casualties mount and costs become clear."
CBS News polling director Anthony Salvanto on Tuesday also highlighted this phenomenon when analyzing a poll on the Iran war commissioned by his network that showed US voters' support for the conflict dropped precipitously the longer they believed it would last.
"If you think it's going to be a long conflict, months, even years... the numbers tilt toward disapproval overall," he said.
The longer Americans believe the conflict in Iran will last, the more they disapprove, a new CBS News poll finds. Half the country believes it'll be months, or even years before it's over. CBS News' @SalvantoCBS breaks down the new findings. https://t.co/KyjZB3PriP pic.twitter.com/N4yXnlKgLS
— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 3, 2026
Trump so far has not offered any kind of timeline for his war against Iran, and Politico reported on Wednesday that the US military is preparing for the conflict to last until at least September.
Trump on Friday insisted he would not end the conflict with Iran until its government offered its "unconditional surrender."