June, 27 2012, 04:29pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Leslie Anderson Maloy, for CSI, at (703) 276-3256 or lmaloy@hastingsgroup.com; and Alex Formuzis, for EWG, at 202-667-6982 or alex@ewg.org
One Million Americans to Fight Industry Efforts to Kill Clean Energy Agenda
Three Dozen Citizen Organizations From Across Nation Take on Undue Influence of Energy Company “Goliath”; Push Reflects Views of 83 Percent of Americans That a “New-Grassroots Driven” Effort is Needed.
WASHINGTON
Fed up with the undue influence of the energy companies, utilities, lobbyists and other interests that are making it impossible for Washington to move forward decisively in achieving America's clean energy future, 36 citizen organizations with more than 1.1 million combined members are joining forces to advance a nine-point "American Clean Energy Agenda" and to push for a serious renewable energy agenda no matter who is the next President or which party controls Congress.
The American Clean Energy Agenda is available online at https://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org.
As crafted by the groups, the new American Clean Energy Agenda calls for a number of bold steps, including: phasing out nuclear power, natural gas, coal and industrial biomass in favor of efficient use of renewable, non-polluting resources; opposition to a "clean energy standard" that includes coal, nuclear, oil, gas and unsustainable biomass; retooling federal "loan guarantees" to make smarter investments in renewable energy; greater emphasis on renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; and avoiding a future in which Americans suffer the consequences of mountaintop mining for coal and fracking of shale gas that is then exported for use in other nations.
Organized by the nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the emergence of the new network of citizen-run organizations reflects a deep dissatisfaction among Americans about the iron grip maintained by the energy industry and its lobbyists in promoting the non-solution of an "all of the above" approach to energy that would preserve the worst options and dilute the focus on real solutions.
How do the three dozen groups know they reflect the thinking of the vast majority of Americans? On April 25, 2012, the Civil Society Institute released a national opinion poll conducted by ORC International finding that:
* More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) - including 70 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents, and 85 percent of Democrats -- believe that "the energy industry's extensive and well-financed public relations, campaign contributions and lobbying machine is a major barrier to moving beyond business as usual when it comes to America's energy policy."
* More than eight out of 10 Americans (83 percent) - including 69 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Independents, and 95 percent of Democrats -- agree with the following statement: "The time is now for a new, grassroots-driven politics to realize a renewable energy future. Congress is debating large public investments in energy and we need to take action to ensure that our taxpayer dollars support renewable energy-- one that protects public health, promotes energy independence and the economic well being of all Americans."
CSI President Pam Solo said: "It is time for the communities who are suffering the ill effects of fracking, mountaintop mining, and other forms of wasteful and dangerous energy production to have a say in moving America to a clean energy future. The political power of the energy industry has deferred a clean energy agenda at the expense of the health and safety of too many communities in the country. To those who will say that these groups do not have a place at the policy-making table, we say this: These are exactly the people who need to be heard. The harms caused by continued reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power may not be felt in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, but they are experienced in the heartland of this nation. We do not have the money, the water or the time to waste delaying and deferring serious solutions to these hidden costs of relying on an old energy path. This agenda puts the burden of proof on those who claim that coal can be clean, fracking natural gas is not harmful, and nuclear power is safe. It is time for reason and precaution over politics. The health of Americans and our environment can no longer be made a secondary priority behind energy development at any price."
Heather White, chief of staff, Environmental Working Group, said: "Whether it be oil and shale gas drilling, coal mining or nuclear energy, this coalition of grassroots experts have witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts of mountaintop mining removal, fracking for natural gas, uranium mining and nuclear waste. We've banded together to take back our clean energy future from the seemingly all-powerful big oil, natural gas and energy companies that continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to keep us trapped in a dirty energy economy. As this research shows, the vast majority of Americans agree that we need clean, renewable energy, and don't want big subsidies flowing to oil and nuclear companies. They want us to invest in energy efficiency, renewable and technology to ensure an economically viable and livable economy. We must make a clear choice that will put the nation on the right track to clean energy future."
As signed by the supporting citizen organization, the American Clean Energy Agenda statement reads, in part as follows: "The time is now for a new, grassroots-driven politics to bring about a renewable energy future. As Congress debates major new public investments in energy, we need to ensure that our taxpayer dollars support an energy system that protects public health, promotes energy independence and ensures the economic well being of all Americans.
The precautionary principle must be the lodestar for the effort to create a new energy future for America that goes "beyond business as usual." In the energy sphere, the core of the precautionary principle is to prevent degradation of the environment, protect public health, preserve access to clean water, sustain the electric grid and combat global climate change, all while laying the basis for an adequate standard of living for today's populations and future generations .
We, the undersigned, agree to this fundamental principle and further commit to work toward a truly renewable, sustainable energy standard that built on the following shared premises:
1. We must generate the political will to create a sustainable healthy energy future by 2030 by accelerating the phase-out of nuclear power, natural gas, coal and industrial biomass and driving a grand transition to efficient use of renewable, non-polluting resources.
2. Achieving a sustainable energy future hinges on grassroots organizing to mobilize and educate the public and to demand support from our community, business, and political leaders.
3. The entrenched dirty energy industry's public relations machine and lobbyists block the path to healthy energy options and sources. We will expose their misleading tactics and promote a truly healthy and renewable energy system.
4. The renewable energy standard is a proven model for a sustainable future, and our goal is to see it implemented on a national basis - as it already is in many states and other nations. We oppose the so-called "clean energy standard" as a dishonest political ploy designed to protect polluting energy industries - coal, nuclear, oil, gas and unsustainable biomass - that have brought us to the crisis we are in today.
5. We urge our local, state and federal authorities with jurisdiction over energy generation, power distribution and rate-setting to ensure a level playing field for renewable energy and efficiency. It is essential to take fully into account the long-term risks and costs to health, environment and communities of all energy resources, and to adopt policies based on least cost to consumers and minimal risk. We urge specific policies that will ensure this full reckoning as well as strong energy efficiency standards that minimize the demand for resources and provide good jobs and clear benefits to consumers.
6. We hold that the overall use of taxpayer dollars for energy projects - whether called "subsidies," "tax incentives" or "loan guarantees" - currently runs counter to the public interest. Government incentives must benefit public health, economic well-being and the environment. We will develop clear guidelines to direct smarter public investment in energy.
7. We will educate our fellow citizens about the negative impacts of water-intensive energy choices on human and environmental health. Families and communities deserve clean air, access to clean water, safe, sustainable food and good health.
8. We will demonstrate that renewable energy and energy efficiency programs can be flexibly configured and adapted across the country to accommodate regional differences in energy portfolios.
9. Exporting dirty energy harms public health and contaminates our water, with the result that Americans pay the environmental and health price of meeting the energy needs of other countries while gaining nothing in the way of energy independence. Exporting coal extracted by mountaintop removal and shale gas obtained by fracking are especially egregious examples. Forcing US industries to compete with other nations for domestic supplies is likely to drive up prices dramatically and may cause them to relocate overseas."
The 36 organizations joining together to support the agenda are: Appalachian Citizens Law Center; Beyond Nuclear; Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy; Chesapeake Climate Action Network; Christians for the Mountains; Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana; Citizens' Greener Evanston; Civil Society Institute; Clean Air Council; Coal River Mountain Watch; Community Environmental Defense Council; Dakota Resource Council; Don't Waste Michigan; Environmental Advocates of New York; Environmental Working Group; GRACE Communications Foundation; Healthy Planet; Kentucky Coalition; Long Island Progressive Coalition; Northern Plains Resource Council; Nuclear Information and Resource Service; Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition; Oregon Rural Action; Otsego 2000; Partnership for Policy Integrity; Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Sustainable and Healthy Energy; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Renewable Energy Long Island; Responsible Drilling Alliance; Shut Down Indian Point Now; Statewide Organizing for Community Empowerment; VT Citizens Action Network; West Michigan Jobs Group; Western Colorado Congress; Western Organization of Resource Councils; and Women's Energy Matters.
The 36 organizations work on the ground in the following 23 states (plus the District of Columbia): California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The April 25, 2012 ORC International survey conducted for CSI is available online at https://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/042512release.cfm.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
Retired General Says Hegseth Boat Strike on Shipwrecked Sailors Was a 'War Crime'
"Secretary Hegseth is basically convening everyone to think... this is the kind of thing that happens in war," said retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling. "It's not."
Dec 08, 2025
A retired general suggested Monday that the Trump administration’s strike on shipwrecked survivors on September 2 may have been a war crime.
In the face of mounting scrutiny, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has continued to defend what has been described as a "double-tap" strike off the coast of Trinidad, alleging that the two survivors were drug traffickers bound for America who could have still theoretically harmed it in some way despite clinging to the wreckage for their lives following the first strike.
NBC reported this weekend that Adm. Frank "Mitch" Bradley, who oversaw the strikes, told lawmakers that Hegseth had given direct orders for all 11 men aboard the vessel to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted.”
Last week, when reports first emerged of a second strike, Hegseth denied that it had taken place, calling it “fake news” before the White House later confirmed and defended the killing of the survivors.
Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who served as the commanding general of the US Army Europe from 2011 to 2012, discussed the strikes on Monday in an appearance on MS NOW's (formerly MSNBC's) "Morning Joe."
"It is, in fact, in my view, a war crime," Hertling said.
"Imagine yourself falling off a cruise ship and being asked to hang on to a piece of wood after you've just been struck with a large kinetic round that has killed nine of your 11 copilots on this boat," Hertling said. "It doesn't matter what they're doing at that point."
Hertling suggested that the frequent use of the term "double-tap" to refer to the strike was a misnomer, as was Hegseth's invocation of the phrase "fog of war" to defend the military's actions.
“That’s a term that special operators use when there are two successive rounds at a target to eliminate it, and to get rid of someone who is attacking them,” the general explained regarding the claims of a "double-tap" strike. “This was a restrike, with time between the first strike and the second. That gives you time to figure out what you’re going to do and clear that so-called ‘fog of war.'”
He cited the definition from Carl von Clausewitz, the 18th-century Prussian general and military theorist who coined the term to describe the “uncertainty” of battle.
"Secretary Hegseth is basically convening everyone to think he has been in war for 20 years, and this is the kind of thing that happens in war. It's not," Hertling continued. "What I'll tell you, having been involved in strikes like this on the ground, the only time you consider a restrike is when the enemy continues to fight, and you're continuing to either strike them with artillery or some type of faraway missile. So a restrike like this occurs when you realize the individuals on the ground or in the water are trying to fight back."
Hegseth and Bradley’s defense of the strikes has centered around the idea that even as they floated helplessly on a piece of debris, the victims still posed a “continuing threat” as they could have theoretically called in other traffickers as backup to retrieve them and their cargo.
As of yet, the administration has presented no evidence that the men were calling for backup, and videos of the incident viewed by members of Congress during a closed-door hearing reportedly suggest they lacked any means of communication. Bradley, meanwhile, acknowledged in his Senate testimony that the survivors did not appear to have any radio or communication devices.
Further undermining the Trump administration's argument that the boat posed an immediate threat, Bradley also reportedly told Congress that the ship was not even bound for the US, but for the South American nation of Suriname.
Hertling emphasized that the two men were shipwrecked on "a piece of debris floating in the middle of the Caribbean," adding that "these individuals are not going to go anywhere, which will become clear with the film," though Hertling acknowledged that he had not personally seen it.
In recent days, leading Democrats, as well as some Republicans in Congress, have called for the release of the video, which House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) described last week as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.” Himes said that while the video showed the men were carrying drugs, “they were not in a position to continue their mission in any way.”
The strike was the first in a months-long campaign of extrajudicial bombings by the Trump administration on boats that they have claimed without evidence have contained drug traffickers bound for the US. At least 87 people have been killed in the two dozen strikes since September. Some of those killed in the strikes were later reported to have been ordinary fishermen, and others who had nothing to do with the drug trade.
While focus has been centered on the details of the September 2 strike in recent days and Hegseth's role, experts have emphasized that the entire boat-bombing campaign is illegal.
"The initial attack was illegal too,” said Kenneth Roth, the former longtime director of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, on social media last week. "Whether Hegseth ordered survivors killed after a US attack on a supposed drug boat is not the heart of the matter. It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained. There is no 'armed conflict' despite Trump's claim."
While the "Morning Joe" segment focused on the question of whether the second September 2 strike was a war crime, some legal experts have said those involved in ordering and carrying out that attack and the other bombings could actually be liable for murder under US law, since Congress has not authorized an armed conflict in the Caribbean.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Trump Vow to Intervene, Kushner Linked to Paramount's Hostile Bid for Warner Bros.
"The correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner," said one antitrust advocate.
Dec 08, 2025
Paramount Skydance on Monday launched a hostile bid to take over Warner Bros. Discovery shortly after US President Donald Trump publicly expressed skepticism of Netflix's proposed deal to acquire parts of the media company—and pledged to intervene in the federal review process.
"It is a big market share, there’s no question about it," Trump said late Sunday of Netflix's proposed $83 billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) film studio and streaming business.
"I’ll be involved in that decision," the president added.
Hours after Trump's comments, Paramount CEO David Ellison—the son of billionaire GOP megadonor and close Trump ally Larry Ellison—announced the hostile bid to buy WBD, attempting to subvert the Netflix deal by taking an all-cash, $30-per-share offer directly to Warner Bros. shareholders.
Observers expressed alarm over the seeming coordination between the president and Paramount's chief executive as the fight over Warner Bros. escalates. Trump reportedly favored Paramount to win the bidding war for WBD, which owns CNN, HBO Max, and other major assets.
Axios reported Monday that "Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing."
"Affinity Partners was not mentioned in Paramount's press release on Monday morning about its $108 billion bid," Axios noted, "nor were participating sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar."
Ellison was reportedly at the White House last week urging the Trump administration to block Netflix's bid for WBD.
Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Ellison said that "we've had great conversations with the president about" Paramount—which controls CBS News thanks to a merger that the Trump administration approved—potentially becoming the owner of CNN, a frequent target of Trump's vitriol.
CNBC: Do you think the president embraces the idea of you being the owner of CNN given his criticism for that network?
DAVID ELLISON: Ah -- we've had great conversations with the president about this but I don't want to speak for him in any way, shape, or form pic.twitter.com/FdwBzfP3eO
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 8, 2025
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, said in response to Ellison's remarks that "the correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner."
"The president inserting himself in the deal is obviously problematic, regardless of the parties involved," said Hegde. "If Netflix’s Ted Sarandos, who Trump called a great person, finds a way to appease him, that is also not good!"
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed similar concerns about Trump's potential corruption of the regulatory process. The proposed Netflix deal is expected to face a review by the US Justice Department's Antitrust Division, where top officials were recently ousted for "insubordination" amid criticism of agency leaders' corporate-friendly approach to merger enforcement.
"Is that an open invite for CEOs to curry favor with Trump in exchange for merger approvals?" Warren asked after Trump pledged to insert himself into the Netflix-WBD review process.
"It should be an independent decision by the Department of Justice based on the law and facts," added Warren, who called the Netflix-WBD deal "an anti-monopoly nightmare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Brazilian Official Warns Trump of 'Vietnam-Style' Regional Conflict If He Attacks Venezuela
"The last thing we want is for South America to become a war zone," said Celso Amorim, chief foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Dec 08, 2025
A top Brazilian official is warning President Donald Trump that a US military attack on Venezuela could easily spiral out of control into a "Vietnam-style" regional conflict.
Celso Amorim, chief foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said in an interview published on Monday by the Guardian that a US military strike on Venezuela would inevitably draw nations throughout Latin America into an armed conflict that would be difficult to contain.
"The last thing we want is for South America to become a war zone—and a war zone that would inevitably not just be a war between the US and Venezuela," he said. "It would end up having global involvement and this would be really unfortunate."
Amorim added that "if there was an invasion, a real invasion [of Venezuela]... I think undoubtedly you would see something similar to Vietnam—on what scale it’s impossible to say."
While acknowledging that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is disliked by many other South American leaders, Amorim predicted that even some of Maduro's adversaries would rally to his side in the face of destabilizing military actions by the US government.
He also predicted that anti-US sentiment would surge throughout the continent in the event of an invasion, as there is still major resentment toward the US for backing right-wing military coups during the Cold War in Chile, Brazil, and other nations.
"I know South America," he emphasized. "Our whole continent exists because of resistance against foreign invaders."
The Trump administration in recent weeks has signaled that it plans to launch attacks against purported drug traffickers inside Venezuela, even though reports from the US government and the United Nations have not identified Venezuela as a significant source of drugs that enter the United States.
The administration has also accused Maduro of leading an international drug trafficking organization called the Cartel de los Soles, despite many experts saying that they have seen no evidence that such an organization formally exists.
Trump late last month further escalated tensions with Venezuela when he declared that airspace over the nation was "closed in its entirety," even though he lacks any legal authority to enforce such a decree.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that Maduro is remaining defiant in the face of US pressure, as he is refusing to go into exile despite the threat of an attack on his country.
According to the Post's sources, Maduro's inner circle of allies "shows no signs of imminent collapse," even as he has limited his public appearances and beefed up his personal security amid fears that he could be the target of an assassination attempt.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


