February, 12 2013, 02:12pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, (202) 683-2500, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org.
135 National, State and Local Groups Tell Governor Cuomo to Stand Up for People, Not Pollution
In Iowa print ad, coalition urges New York governor to reject fracking in New York
Des Moines, Iowa
On the eve of what could be a major decision in New York's battle over whether to allow the process of hydraulic fracturing to take place in the state, 135 environmental, public health, faith and labor organizations ran a full-page advertisement in the Des Moines Register today reminding Governor Andrew Cuomo that his presidential aspirations may be affected by his actions on the controversial process. The ad is running just one day before the New York Department of Environmental Conversation could issue its Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) on fracking, followed by its rules on the process by February 27.
"Iowa residents have long held the power to sway presidential elections, and now they may also have the ability to help protect communities across the Unites States from fracking," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter. "Governor Cuomo needs to learn that the road to the White House is not lined with drilling rigs. If he allows even one well in New York, voters in Iowa and elsewhere will remember that in 2016."
Spearheaded by the national coalition Americans Against Fracking, the ad was endorsed by 350.org, Breast Cancer Action, the Center for Biological Diversity, CREDO Action, Earthworks, Democracy for America, Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch and Greenpeace, among others. It is intended to remind the rumored 2016 presidential contender that people across the United States, not just in New York, are watching his actions on fracking.
"Governor Cuomo may emerge as one of the nation's most principled, powerful leaders, rooted in his achievements on ethics reform and if he follows through on his promises on campaign finance reform. But his biggest test, which would set him apart from most national leaders even of his own party, will be if he stands up to the big oil and gas interests that pollute our nation's politics with campaign contributions and that are ready to ruin New Yorkers' drinking water by fracking across the state. Today Iowans, and the nation, are watching," said Phil Radford, executive director of Greenpeace.
Last month, over 200,000 comments, many of them opposed to fracking, were submitted to the New York Department of Environmental Conversation. Governor Cuomo is rumored to be considering allowing 10 to 40 demonstration fracking wells in New York, but opponents are concerned that this will set a dangerous precedence for future drilling.
"Hydrofracking is now understood to be the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the country. It's unconscionable that in a post-Sandy world, we would even consider contributing to further climate change," said Phil Aroneanu co-founder & U.S. campaigns director of 350.org.
Fracking is also of concern to residents of Iowa because the oil and gas industry mines sands used in fracking in the state, and the frac sand industry is raising fears about air pollution and water contamination.
"The rush to quench America's insatiable thirst for oil and gas through hydraulic fracturing is entrenched in the rush to mine the cheap sand necessary for the process from the pristine hills we call home here in northeast Iowa. The issue has become politically volatile, fueled by immense amounts of money spent by the industry to buy the regulations it wants. Governor Cuomo needs to remember that the rush to frack in New York will have lasting consequences for residents of his state--and ours. We urge him to do the right thing and not allow fracking in New York," noted Jeff Abbas of Allamakee County Protectors.
"Here in Iowa, we have seen what big business allowed to run out of control can do to our environment," said Adam Mason, state policy director of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "Just like corporate agriculture has fouled our waters here in Iowa, fracking and the giant energy companies that promote it have the potential to cause environmental disaster across the country. Iowans care about clean air and clean water, and as candidates look to Iowa for support in 2016, we will be looking at their record on the environment as a gauge for whom to vote."
"Hydrofracking is a serious threat to the water quality of both rural and urban communities," added Aaron Jorgensen-Briggs, an Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement member from Des Moines. "We need to focus on clean energy that puts people first and stop kowtowing to corporate polluters."
An increasingly controversial form of oil and gas extraction, fracking is the process of taking millions of gallons of water, mixing it with tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals-including known carcinogens-and pumping it all underground at extreme pressure to break up rock formations and release oil or natural gas. New techniques and technologies used in the process are more intensive and riskier than conventional drilling, making fracking more dangerous than ever. To date, more than 1,000 reported cases of water contamination have been associated with drilling and fracking.
"A fracking boom would strike a devastating blow to New York's efforts to fight climate disruption," said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "The massive greenhouse gas pollution from this dangerous form of oil and gas extraction will fuel climate chaos and extreme weather. To reduce the risk of killer storms like Hurricane Sandy, New York needs to ban fracking."
As for energy security, industry overstates the role of natural gas as a long-term source of domestic energy, misrepresenting its intentions. As of October 26, the Department of Energy had received 19 proposals to export potentially vast amounts of liquefied natural gas, up to over 40 percent of current U.S. natural gas consumption. Considering this push to export, along with other efforts to increase natural gas demand, Food & Water Watch finds that the United States may only have 50 years worth of natural gas, not the 100 years worth popularly claimed. And this assumes the industry wins completely unrestricted access to drill and frack and assumes that notoriously uncertain estimates of shale gas reserves will prove accurate.
Given these and other concerns, backlash against fracking and drilling is increasing. To date, over 325 municipalities in the United States, as well as Vermont, Bulgaria and France, have passed resolutions to stop fracking. In November, Longmont, Colorado made history as the first town in Colorado to ban fracking despite the fact that the oil and gas industry poured half a million dollars into opposing the successful ballot measure. In 2011, activists successfully blocked a plan to open the Delaware River to fracking.
View the ad here.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
With Food Aid Suspended for Millions of Families, Trump Brags of 'Statuary Marble' Bathroom Makeover
"He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself," one critic said of Trump.
Oct 31, 2025
As millions of families across the US are about to lose their access to food aid over the weekend, President Donald Trump on Friday decided to show off photos of a White House bathroom that he boasted had been refurbished in "highly polished, statuary marble."
Trump posted photos of the bathroom on his Truth Social platform, and he explained that he decided to remodel it because he was dissatisfied with the "art deco green tile style" that had been implemented during a previous renovation, which he described as "totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era."
"I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble," Trump continued. "This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!"
Trump's critics were quick to pan the remodeled bathroom, especially since it came at a time when Americans are suffering from numerous policies the president and the Republican Party are enacting, including tariffs that are raising the cost of food and clothing; expiring subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act exchanges; and cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) programs in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
"Sure, you might not be able to eat or go to the doctor, but check out how nice Trump's new marble shitter is," remarked independent journalist Aaron Rupar on Bluesky.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who has become a critic of Trump, ripped the president for displaying such tone deafness in the middle of a federal government shutdown.
"Government still shutdown, Americans not getting paid, food assistance for low-income families and children about to be cut off, and this is what he cares about," he wrote on X. "He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself."
Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, expressed extreme skepticism that the White House bathroom during Abraham Lincoln's tenure was decked out in marble and gold.
"Fact check based on no research but with a high degree of confidence: This is not the marble that was originally in the Lincoln Bedroom," he wrote. "It is more likely to the be retrieved from a Trump casino before it was demolished."
Fashion critic Derek Guy, meanwhile, mostly left politics out of his criticisms of the remodeled bathroom, instead simply observing that "White House renovations are currently being spearheaded by someone with famously bad interior design taste."
Earlier this month, Trump sparked outrage when he demolished the entire East Wing of the White House to make way for a massive White House ballroom financed by donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Warns Any Trump Attack on Venezuela Would Be 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'
"Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war," said Democratic US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Oct 31, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert "another endless, regime-change war" amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.
Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be "blatantly unconstitutional."
"The United States Congress must speak up and stop this," Khanna said in a video posted to social media. "No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress' approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars."
Watch:
Trump is getting ready to launch strikes inside Venezuela per the @WSJ & @MiamiHerald.
This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war. @RepThomasMassie @RandPaul. pic.twitter.com/LrnPPUVZaU
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 31, 2025
Khanna's remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.
The Herald reported early Friday that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment." The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration "has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs," but adding that "the president hasn't made a final decision on ordering land strikes."
Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that "the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down."
Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.
Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are "going to be next" following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.
Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period."
A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration's accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.
Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump's belligerence toward Venezuela.
"Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea," Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. "The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump's militarism."
Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that "most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela's leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading."
"Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump's unauthorized use of military force," Williams added. "The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators' offices at 202-224-3121."
A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that "Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise," said Neguse. "Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives' powers under Article I of our Constitution."
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period," Neguse added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Question' More People Will End Up With Fake Insurance If ACA Subsidies Expire: Expert
"This is what happens when we design systems for insurance companies instead of humans."
Oct 31, 2025
Time on Thursday published reporting about "how fake health insurance is luring people in," and along with sharing stories of Americans tricked into paying for plans that aren't compliant with the Affordable Care Act, the article features an expert's warning that more could be fooled if Congress lets ACA subsidies expire.
The ongoing federal government shutdown stems from congressional Democrats' efforts to reverse recent GOP cuts to Medicaid and extend the ACA tax credits, which set to expire at the end of the year. Open enrollment for 2026 plans sold on ACA marketplaces starts Saturday, and Americans who buy insurance through these platforms now face the looming end of subsidies and substantial monthly premium hikes.
"Confusion about navigating insurance writ large and the Affordable Care Act marketplace in particular has led many people to end up with plans that they think are health insurance which in fact are not health insurance," Time reported. "They mistakenly click away from healthcare.gov, the website where people are supposed to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, and end up on a site with a misleading name."
ACA plans are required to cover 10 essential benefits, the outlet detailed, but consumers who leave the official website may instead sign up for short-term plans that don't span the full year, fixed indemnity plans that pay a small amount for certain services, or "healthcare sharing ministries, in which people pitch in for other peoples' medical costs, but which sometimes do not cover preexisting conditions."
Claire Heyison, senior policy analyst for health insurance and marketplace policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Time that "there's no question that more people will end up with these kinds of plans if the premium tax credits are not extended."
According to the outlet:
These non-insurance products "have increasingly been marketed in ways that make them look similar to health insurance," Heyison says. To stir further confusion, some even deploy common insurance terms like PPO (preferred provider organization) or co-pay in their terms and conditions. But people will pay a price for using them, Heyison says, because they can charge higher premiums than ACA-compliant plans, deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and exclude benefits like prescription drug coverage or maternity care.
Often, the websites where people end up buying non-ACA compliant insurance have the names and logos of insurers on them. Sometimes, they are lead-generation sites... that ask for a person's name and phone number and then share that information with brokers who get a commission for signing up people for plans, whether they are health insurance or not.
To avoid paying for misleading plans, Heyison advised spending a few days researching before buying anything, steering clear of companies that offer a gift for signing up, and asking for documents detailing coverage to review before payment.
On the heels of Time's reporting and the eve of open enrollment, Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative published polling that makes clear Americans across the political spectrum are worried about skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
The pollsters found that 75% of voters are "somewhat" or "very" concerned about the spikes, including 83% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 66% of Republicans. While the overall figure was the same as last week, the share who said they were very concerned rose from 45% to 47%.
As the second-longest shutdown ever drags on, 57% of respondents said they don't believe that President Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are focused on lowering healthcare costs for people like them and their families. More broadly, 52% also did not agree that Trump and GOP lawmakers "are fighting on behalf of" people like them.
A plurality of voters (42%) said that Trump and congressional Republicans deserve most of the blame for rising premiums, while 27% blamed both parties equally, and just a quarter put most of the responsibility on elected Democrats.
"While President Trump focuses on the moodboard for his gilded ballroom and House Republicans refuse to show up for work in Washington, a ticking time bomb is strapped to working families’ pocketbooks," said Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork Collaborative's managing director of policy and advocacy, in a Friday statement.
Pointing to the Trump administration's legally dubious decision not to keep funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown, she added that "healthcare premiums are set to double and food assistance benefits are on the brink of collapse in a matter of hours, and voters know exactly who's to blame."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


