

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.
Today Rainforest Action Network (RAN) released The Principle Matter: Banks, Climate & The Carbon Principles,
a new report assessing the impact of the much-lauded 2008 Carbon
Principles signed by six of the country's leading banks. In reviewing
bank investment from January 2008 to June of 2010, the report found that
there is no evidence that the Carbon Principles stopped or slowed
financing to carbon-intensive projects. In addition, the report found
that there is no evidence that the Carbon Principles spurred investment
in clean energy in greater levels.
Three leading banks, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley
announced the Carbon Principles in February 2008. The Carbon Principles
were the outcome of a nine-month bank led process to evaluate and
address carbon risks in the financing of electric power projects in the
United States. The Carbon Principles represent the first time that
financial institutions jointly committed to advance a consistent
approach to the issue of climate change in the U.S. electric power
industry. Since the Principles were released, Wells Fargo, Bank of
America and Credit Suisse have subsequently become signatories.
"The Carbon Principles were a significant step in establishing
carbon risk as important for banks to consider. Based on the serious
threat posed by global climate change, however, it is time leading
financial institutions develop a more robust framework of policies and
practices that concretely reduce emissions from electric power," said
Amanda Starbuck of Rainforest Action Network.
When the Carbon Principles were created, they were one of the first
industry-wide statements from the banking sector specifically addressing
climate change and carbon-intensive investments. The Principles were
designed to address the risks associated with regulatory uncertainty of
carbon emissions, and were also a direct response to growing public
concern over plans for more than one hundred new coal-fired power
plants.
RAN's report compared the financing of major utilities building new
coal fired power plants over a two year period and found that there was
no discernable difference in financing patterns between banks that
signed on to the Carbon Principles and those that did not. The report
did find that the Carbon Principles placed stricter due diligence
conditions on banks for financing the construction of new coal fired
power plants in the United States.
"In short, have the Carbon Principles restricted financing to
coal-fired power plants or encouraged greater levels of clean energy
investments? Sadly, the answer is no," continued Starbuck. "Our research
reveals that, while the broader economy has been shifting away from
coal for myriad reasons, if the Carbon Principle banks want to take
leadership in addressing coal and climate change in the financial sector
they must do more."
As a case study, RAN's report reviewed the financing of two American
Municipal Power (formerly AMP-Ohio) coal-fired power plants, which were
both funded by banks that signed on to the Carbon Principles. Needing
to secure nearly $4 billion from a bond placement for one of the plants,
AMP contacted JPMorgan in early 2008 with concerns regarding how the
Carbon Principles might affect the company's ability to raise capital.
On February 7, 2008, a response from JPMorgan, which was leaked to the
press, assured AMP that "[n]othing in the Principles prevents us from
underwriting debt or providing financing for AMP-Ohio's projects or is
intended to do so."
The RAN report recommends that leading financial institutions
develop a more robust framework of policies and practices to address
climate risk, which would include:
In compiling this review, RAN compared Carbon Principles with
non-Carbon Principles bank underwriting in the U.S. electricity sector;
reviewed signatory bank reporting of Carbon Principles implementation;
interviewed bank and civil society participants in the Carbon Principles
process; and examined alternative policy frameworks.
The full report and supporting data can be found at ran.org/carbonprinciples
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is headquartered in San Francisco, California with offices staff in Tokyo, Japan, and Edmonton, Canada, plus thousands of volunteer scientists, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens around the world. We believe that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration bypassed Congress to sell Israel more than 20,000 bombs, costing over $650 million.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced joint resolutions of disapproval for US arms sales to Israel following its escalation of attacks against Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine in recent days.
The resolutions Sanders presented on Thursday (I-Vt.) are cosponsored by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and target a total of $658 million worth of weapons sales to Israel.
“Given the horrific destruction that Israel’s extremist government has wrought on Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon, the last thing in the world that American taxpayers need to do right now is to provide 22,000 new bombs to the Netanyahu government,” Sanders said. “No more weapons to support an illegal war.”
The weapons Sanders hopes to block were approved under emergency authority by the Trump administration earlier this month, allowing it to bypass congressional review.
According to Reuters, the package contained more than 12,000 thousand-pound bombs requested by Israel, which human rights groups say Israel has often used in densely populated areas, leading to large numbers of civilian casualties.
"Trump not only disregarded congressional authority to declare this war, he’s now bypassing Congress by invoking an emergency authority to supply additional bombs to this war, a crisis of his own making," Van Hollen said.
More than 3,000 people have been killed in US-Israeli attacks on Iran since February 28, according to a Wednesday report from the US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency, a humanitarian monitor for Iran.
More than 1,300 of those killed have been classified as civilians, including more than 200 children. Meanwhile, more than 3 million Iranians have been displaced from their homes, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency.
In Lebanon, where Israel has launched a ground invasion, the death count is at nearly 1,000 according to the nation's health ministry, following attacks on densely populated areas in recent days. Forced evacuation orders from Israel have led more than a million people to flee from their homes.
Government-backed Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has also intensified since the outbreak of the war, according to Human Rights Watch. Since the beginning of March, there have been reports of settlers—sometimes in uniform—invading Palestinian communities, firing live ammunition, setting homes and cars on fire, and attacking families in their homes.
Sanders' resolutions of disapproval will be introduced under the Arms Export Control Act, which allows Congress to vote on halting proposed weapons transfers after being notified by the executive branch.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, controlled by Republicans, will have five days to consider the proposal. After that, Sanders and his cosponsors will have the opportunity to force a simple-majority floor vote to discharge it.
To actually block weapons sales, the resolution would need to pass both the House and the Senate, which is highly unlikely. Even if this happened, Trump could still veto it, which could only be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both houses.
While the vote itself is almost sure to fail, it has the opportunity to force members of Congress—particularly other Democrats—to go on the record about their support for Israel's actions in the Middle East, which many have continued to fund even while rhetorically opposing them.
“President Trump’s war of choice in Iran has been a catastrophe—jeopardizing our national security and the lives of our troops, killing and wounding thousands of innocent civilians, and causing havoc in the global economy," Welch said. “I support these joint resolutions to make sure that we do not send another 20,000 bombs to Israel that will result in further destruction in Iran and Lebanon. We must end this war, and we must not send these bombs.”
Hegseth also scolded the US media for reporting negative news about the war and insisted that it wasn't a "quagmire."
President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran has led to energy prices surging across the globe while unleashing political instability across the Middle East.
However, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday that the world needs to show Trump more gratitude for everything he's done.
Speaking at a press conference, Hegseth lambasted US allies who so far have not joined Trump's Iran war, which he launched early on a Saturday morning without any approval from the US Congress.
"The world, the Middle East, our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump: 'Thank you,'" Hegseth said. "Thank you for the courage to stop this terror state from holding the world hostage with missiles while building, or attempting to build, a nuclear bomb. Thank you for doing the work of the free world."
Hegseth: "Our ungrateful allies in Europe, even segments of our own press, should be saying one thing to President Trump -- 'Thank you. Thank you for the courage to stop this terror stage from holding the world hostage while building or attempting to build a nuclear bomb.'" pic.twitter.com/EpuPOUDd6I
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 19, 2026
US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been "obliterated" by US-led airstrikes that were launched last year, and that there "has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability" since then.
Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent also said Iran had posed "no imminent threat" when he announced his resignation this week.
Despite those acknowledgments by high-level officials, elsewhere in the press conference, Hegseth attacked the US media for reporting negative news about the Iran war.
"The media here—not all of it, but much of it—wants you to think, just 19 days into this conflict, that we're somehow spinning toward an endless abyss or a forever war or a quagmire," claimed the one-time Fox News host. "Nothing could be further from the truth."
Hegseth: The media wants you to think that we're somehow spinning toward an endless abyss or a forever war or a quagmire. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hear it from me.
One of hundreds of thousands who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, who watched previous foolish… pic.twitter.com/qI3RpGzmy3
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 19, 2026
Hegseth then informed viewers that as "one of hundreds of thousands who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, who watched previous foolish politicians like [Presidents George W.] Bush, [Barack] Obama, and [Joe] Biden squander American credibility," he could credibly claim that "this is not those wars" because "President Trump knows better."
Hegseth also defended the Pentagon's request for $200 billion in funding for the war, telling reporters, "IT takes money to kill bad guys."
The Iran Health Ministry has estimated more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed in Israeli and US strikes since the war began in late February.
A recent analysis of opinion polls conducted by data analyst G. Elliott Morris found that the Iran war is the most unpopular military conflict launched by the US over the span of at least three decades.
“The big takeaway from these numbers is that the new war in Iran is very unpopular,” Morris explained. “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.”
"The so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Nearly every member of the House Republican caucus voted Wednesday in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that experts say would result in massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, nutrition assistance, and other key federal programs.
The proposed amendment, led by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), would effectively prohibit the federal government from deficit spending, with an exception for declared wars. The final House vote on the amendment was 211-207, well short of the two-thirds support required for passage of a constitutional amendment.
Every Republican who took part in Wednesday's vote backed the proposed amendment. Just one Democrat—Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas—joined the GOP in voting yes.
The vote came as congressional Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, continued to reject efforts to halt a war that is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion a day—a price tag that some in the GOP have openly embraced.
The vote also came less than a year after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump approved a sprawling reconciliation package that delivered another round of tax cuts primarily to the richest Americans and large corporations, while enacting unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Nonpartisan analysts have estimated that the GOP budget law would add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
“American families don’t need a lecture on fiscal responsibility from the same politicians who just added $4 trillion to the debt with their so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’—one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in American history,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “When it comes to cutting taxes for billionaires, they have never had a problem blowing up the deficit. This amendment is nothing more than a show to cover up their hypocrisy on the debt.”
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said following Wednesday's vote that "the so-called 'balanced budget amendment' is the Republicans’ latest backdoor attempt at gutting Americans’ hard-earned benefits."
"It would force drastic cuts to Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, veterans’ benefits, and other programs American families depend on," said Larson. "My Republican colleagues can say this amendment is about fiscal responsibility all they want, but the reality is that the budget they passed last year ballooned our deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy and give ICE a slush fund larger than most nations' militaries."
"Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."
Ahead of the amendment vote, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) warned that the amendment's passage and ratification by US states would "immediately devastate programs that are appropriated annually, such as housing assistance, education, and scientific and medical research."
"And eventually it would require cutting programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and food assistance," the think tank added. "Claims that these programs would ultimately be protected ring hollow, given their share of the budget. If policymakers decide to shield those programs from cuts, the amendment would require lawmakers to devastate the rest of the federal budget—including Medicaid, food assistance, housing assistance, education, scientific and medical research, farm aid, national parks, transportation, airport security, mine safety—since revenue increases would be so hard to achieve."
Under the proposed amendment, two-thirds support in each chamber of Congress would be required to approve any new tax or increase in the tax rate, hamstringing lawmakers' ability to raise revenue.
"Ultimately, meeting longstanding and broadly popular commitments to seniors’ retirement and healthcare, and managing the future risks associated with higher debt, will require substantially more revenue," said CBPP's Brendan Duke. "This constitutional amendment moves in the opposite direction. Not only would it effectively bar tax increases, but it would allow unlimited tax cuts, thus forcing huge, unacceptable program cuts. It should be roundly rejected."