SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 28 2016, 11:30am EDT
Contact:
Dani Heffernan:,dani@350action.org
How the Presidential Candidates Have Moved (Or Not) on Climate
Full list of links to videos and articles at the bottom
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire
Over the last six months, a network of climate activists, college students and volunteers have been showing up at rallies and events across the country to ask Presidential candidates about an issue that can often go missing from the campaign trail: climate change.
Coordinated by 350 Action, the 501(c)(4) political arm of 350.org, these paid staff and volunteers have helped push the leading Democratic candidates to adopt more progressive positions on the issue, and exposed some of the most outrageous cases of climate denial on the Republican side of the race.
"The 2012 election went by with only the slightest mention of climate change," said Yong Jung Cho, Campaign Coordinator with 350 Action. "This year, we set out to make it one of the most talked about issues in the race, and expand the debate to force candidates to address issues of climate justice, and how the environment intersects with other issues like race, class, and immigration."
350 Action estimates that it has asked more than 70 direct questions and reached every top presidential candidate multiple times.
On the Democratic side of the race, the 350 Action team has helped push Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley to address some of the highest profile climate and environmental justice issues facing the nation, driving each candidate to take progressively stronger stances as the race has continued.
Persistent questioning drove one of the most notable political "evolutions" of the campaign thus far: Hillary Clinton's position on the Keystone XL pipeline. 350 Action volunteers first asked the former Secretary of State about her position on the project on July 28th, when she responded that "If it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question." A 350 Action volunteer pushed Clinton again on September 17th and responded, "I have been waiting for the administration to make a decision. I can't wait much longer." The very next day, September 18th, she got pressured again. Finally on September 22nd, after a question from a 350 Action volunteer in Iowa, Clinton pivoted and said, "I oppose it."
All three Democratic candidates have also faced questions on offshore drilling, fracking, fossil fuel extraction on public lands, fossil fuel divestment, the investigation into ExxonMobil's climate lies, and whether they will take a pledge to refuse fossil fuel industry contributions. On the last question, both Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders answered "yes," while Clinton said she didn't think she received much money from the industry, but she was "gonna take a look." (Reports have shown that almost all of the Clinton campaign's top bundlers have ties to the fossil fuel industry).
The massive methane leak in Porter Ranch has brought a harsh spotlight on the dangers of fracking into the presidential election. Just last week, Bernie Sanders told a 350 Action campaigner that he would shut down the well and expressed his strong stance against this extreme extraction. When a student with 350 Action asked Hillary Clinton about fracking, she expressed her support for Porter Ranch communities but refused to take a strong position on fracking. Asked again only hours later, Clinton told a 350 Action volunteer that "unless spills can be prevented it should not go forward."
As for the Republicans, 350 Action and their supporters have had more luck eliciting declarations of climate denial and defenses of the fossil fuel industry than any significant evolution on the issue. Texas Senator Ted Cruz told a student in January that, "It is in fact a fact that the polar ice caps are bigger today than they were before...we have had 18 years of no significant warming whatsoever." Both statements are factually incorrect. In November, Florida Senator Marco Rubio told a 350 Action volunteer that "it doesn't matter" if fossil fuels cause climate change because his priority is keeping the economy strong. Asked this January about investigations into whether ExxonMobil lied about climate change to the American public, Rubio said the inquiries were "nothing but a left wing effort to demonize industries in America."
"I never thought that when I grew up I'd become a professional question-asker," said Miles Goodrich, a recent graduate from Bowdoin College, who has been stationed in New Hampshire for the last 4 months. "I certainly never raised my hand this much in school. The key is to find a good position visible to the candidate, get your hand up early, keep the question succinct, and always go for a follow up. They usually try and dodge the issue the first time."
While 350 Action's teams on the ground have peppered the candidates with questions around the country, its volunteers and everyday voters unaffiliated with the campaign who have kept the climate issue in the spotlight, according to Cho, the organization's coordinator.
"There will be moments where we've got someone waiting to ask a climate question and then another Iowa or New Hampshire voter will get called on and take the words right out of our mouths," she said. "With the crazy weather, big political developments like Keystone and the Paris Climate Talks, and disasters like the water in Flint and the methane leak in California, climate and energy issues are on the forefront of many voters' minds. People are looking for leadership, we're just helping ask the right questions to see who's ready to provide it."
During the busy primary months ahead, 350 Action will continue to pressure all presidential candidates to take stronger stances on the climate movement's top priorities and pressing issues of the day. In particular, the campaign is looking for commitments to end fossil fuel development on public land, strong stances against fracking, support for a rapid just transition to 100% renewable energy, and a commitment to pursue environmental justice for communities across the United States and around the world.
###
Democratic Candidate Questions and Answers
Keystone XL
- Clinton 2010: inclined to approve KXL
- Sanders Nov 2011: "In my view, the evidence is overwhelming that this pipeline is not in the best interest of our environment or the economic interest of the American people, and the president should reject it."
- Clinton July 28 2015: "if it is undecided when I become president, I will answer your question...I will not express an opinion until they have made a decision, and then I will do so."
- Clinton Sept 17 2015: "I have been waiting for the administration to make a decision. I can't wait much longer. And I am putting the White House on notice. I'm going to tell you what I think soon because I can't wait."
- Clinton Sept 18 2015: "what I have said is that you will hear from me shortly, and you will, but you're not gonna hear from me today"
- Clinton Sept 22 2015: "I oppose it"
Arctic drilling
- O'Malley June 2015: releases white paper announcing opposition to drilling permits in the Arctic
- Sanders Nov 4: introduces "Keep It In The Ground" Act, banning all new fossil fuel extraction on public lands, including the Arctic
- Clinton Oct 16: "we want to keep more fossil fuels under the ocean and in the ground, that's why I'm against Arctic drilling"
- Aug 18 tweet: "The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling"
Fracking
- Sanders Oct 2014: supports state fracking bans in Vermont and California
- Sanders Jan 21: "I'm against fracking, I'm against pipelines."
- Clinton Jan 22: "I oppose irresponsible use of technology. I oppose a failure to disclose the chemicals. I oppose a lack of monitoring of methane. So, those are all the problems, and I don't know whether they can be solved or not."
- O'Malley Jan 24: supports (regulated) fracking
New fossil fuel extraction on public lands
- O'Malley Nov 3: "probably" would end new leasing of fossil fuels on public lands
- Sanders Nov 4: introduces "Keep It In The Ground" Act, banning all new fossil fuel extraction on public lands
- Clinton July 16: no to banning fossil fuel extraction on public lands
- Sanders Sept 20: supports divestment
- O'Malley Oct 28: supports divestment
- Clinton Dec 3: "I would like to see more investment decisions moving toward clean, renewable energy and away from fossil fuels" but responsibly
Exxon investigations
- O'Malley Oct 16 tweet: "We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer. Let's do the same for oil companies & climate change. https://omly.us/1RfPi0U"
- Sanders Oct 20: Calls for Federal investigation of Exxon's climate crimes
- Clinton Oct 29: "there's a lot of evidence they misled people"
- Dec 8: "Exxon Mobil funded all of this climate research, like starting 30, 35 years ago, and guess what! Their scientists found out that fossil fuels contributed to greenhouse gas emissions which contributed to global warming. Those were Exxon Mobil scientists who made that report. And then the company decided to try to just keep sixin'."
Offshore drilling in the Atlantic
- O'Malley Feb 2015: "very much opposed to drilling off the Atlantic coast"
- Sanders Nov 4: introduces "Keep It In The Ground" Act, banning all new fossil fuel extraction on public lands, including offshore drilling in the Atlantic.
- Clinton Dec 16: "I was doing a phone interview with, in South Carolina, I am, you know, not in favor of drilling off our coast"
- Clinton Dec 16: "very skeptical about need or desire for us to pursue offshore drilling"
Campaign contributions from fossil fuel industry
- Sanders/O'Malley July 6/7: sign pledge to refuse fossil fuel industry contributions
- Clinton Dec 16: vows to look into FFI contributions "Well I'm gonna take a look, you're asking me a question I never paid attention to because they don't actually come and talk to me. I think they think I'm a lost cause, which I probably am."
GOP Questions and Answers
Ben Carson
9/30/15
Marco Rubio
1/8/16
"[The Exxon Investigation] is nothing but a left wing effort to demonize industries in America."
11/4/15
"It doesn't matter" if fossil fuels cause climate change.
John Kasich
1/8/16
Chris Christie
1/6/16
"No I won't ban fossil fuel extraction because it's a stupid idea."
Jeb Bush
11/3/15
"[Burning fossil fuels] has also seen a reduction in the amount of carbon emitted."
1/12/16
PAST RELEASES:
January 22, 2016: Video: Asked About Fracking, Clinton Refuses to Take Strong Position
January 21, 2016: Sanders Strongly Against Fracking, Says He Would Shut Down Porter Ranch Well
January 13, 2016: Video: Ted Cruz Stands with ExxonMobil on Climate Denial
January 11, 2016: Video: Kasich Hints to Why GOP Candidates, Republicans Deny Climate Science
December 17, 2015: Hillary Clinton Opposes All Offshore Drilling, Vows to Look Into Fossil Fuel Industry Donations
November 5, 2015: Marco Rubio Says Climate Change "Doesn't Matter"
November 4, 2015: "Keep It In the Ground Act" Raises the Bar for Presidential Leadership on Climate
October 29, 2015: Hillary Clinton Calls for Federal Investigation of Exxon
January 21, 2015: 350 ACTION RESPONDS TO SENATE VOTE ON SCHATZ KXL AMENDMENT
350 Action is the independent political action arm of the non-profit, non-partisan climate justice group 350.org.
LATEST NEWS
Venezuela Mobilizes Military as US Aircraft Carrier Approaches
“The only reason to move it there is to use it against Venezuela,” said one policy expert of the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford.
Nov 12, 2025
White House officials have sought to walk back President Donald Trump's repeated threats against Venezuela in recent days—even as the Department of Defense has continue to strike boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—but officials in the South American country on Tuesday took the arrival of a US aircraft carrier in the region seriously despite the administration's claims that it won't target Venezuela directly.
As the USS Gerald R. Ford entered waters near Latin America, accompanied by three warships, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said Venezuela's entire military arsenal had been placed on "full operational readiness," with President Nicolás Maduro ordering the deployment of nearly 200,000 soldiers.
The government also approved the “massive deployment of ground, aerial, naval, riverine, and missile forces," López announced.
Venezuela's military deployment comes weeks after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Ford to relocate from Europe to Latin America following several military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the Trump administration has claimed are meant to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela—despite the fact that US intelligence agencies and United Nations experts agree that the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the top cause of drug overdoses in the US.
At least 76 people have been killed in the strikes so far, and the Associated Press reported last week that the victims have included an out-of-work bus driver and and a struggling fisherman—people who in some cases had turned to helping drug traffickers transport cocaine across the Caribbean, but were hardly the high-level "narco-terrorists" that Hegseth and Trump have insisted they've killed in the region.
With the carrier strike group entering the Caribbean region, the US now has about 15,000 troops in the area where tensions have escalated since the boat strikes began in September.
Mark Cancian, a senior defense adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Washington Post that Venezuelan officials had good reason to mobilize forces.
“The only reason to move it there is to use it against Venezuela,” Cancian said of the Ford deployment. "The shot clock has started because this is not an asset they can just keep there indefinitely. They have to use it or move it."
Since beginning the boat bombings, Trump has signaled the US attacks could move to Venezuela directly, with the Wall Street Journal reporting late last month that the administration was preparing to target "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Trump also authorized Central Intelligence Agency operations last month, falsely claiming the country has "emptied" its prisons into the US and again asserting that "we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela."
Democratic senators have introduced two war powers resolutions aimed at stopping the US from striking inside Venezuela and at halting the boat-bombing campaign—but Republicans have voted them down after administration officials assured the caucus that the White House was not currently planning to attack Venezuela.
Maduro said last month that Trump's actions in the region in recent months amount to attempts at "regime change," adding that "if Venezuela did not possess oil, gas, gold, fertile land, and water, the imperialists wouldn’t even look at our country."
Trump himself said publicly in 2023 that if he had won the 2020 presidential election, "we would have taken [Venezuela] over, we would have gotten all that oil."
Trump: When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil. pic.twitter.com/5q3Jr1j1Ho
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2023
On Tuesday, both the United Kingdom and Colombia announced that they were halting intelligence sharing with the US in the region, saying that working with the US as it attacks small vessels in the Caribbean could make the countries complicit in violations of international law.
“All levels of law enforcement intelligence are ordered to suspend communications and other agreements with US security agencies,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro said. “This measure will remain in place as long as missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean continue. The fight against drugs must be subordinate to the human rights of the Caribbean people.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Global Energy Report Offers Choice for Humanity: Renewable Transition or 'Dystopian Future' Pushed by Trump
"At COP30, governments must reject this nightmare fantasy, uphold a just transition, and choose a fast, fair, and funded fossil fuel phaseout," said one climate campaigner.
Nov 12, 2025
An International Energy Agency report published Wednesday underscores that world leaders are at a crossroads and must decide whether to embrace an ambitious transition to renewable energy or succumb to the agenda of US President Donald Trump and others bent on propping up the planet-wrecking fossil fuel industry.
The IEA said in its flagship World Energy Outlook that under a so-called "current policies scenario," oil and fracked gas demand could continue to grow until the middle of the century, complicating the organization's earlier projections that global fossil fuel demand could peak by 2030.
The change came amid pressure from the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers in the United States, the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The New York Times noted Wednesday that "Republicans in Congress have been threatening to cut US government funding to the IEA if it does not change the way it operates."
"In an essay posted online, the authors of this year’s report said they were restoring the current policies scenario because it was appropriate to consider multiple possibilities for the way the future might unfold," the Times added. "They did not say they were responding to pressure from the United States."
Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, said in a statement that the scenarios outlined in the new report "illustrate the key decision points that lie ahead and, together, provide a framework for evidence-based, data-driven discussion over the way forward."
Under all of the scenarios examined by the IEA, "renewables grow faster than any other major energy source" even as the Trump administration works to roll back clean energy initiatives in the US and promote fossil fuel production.
China, the report states, "continues to be the largest market for renewables, accounting for 45-60% of global deployment over the next ten years across the scenarios, and remains the largest manufacturer of most renewable technologies."
The analysis was released as world leaders gathered in Belém, Brazil for the COP30 climate talks, which the Trump administration is boycotting while lobbing attacks from afar.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said the IEA report "sets out a stark and simple choice: We can protect people and communities by safeguarding 1.5ºC [of warming], settle for a disastrous business-as-usual 2.5ºC, or choose to backslide into a nightmare future of much higher warming."
"This year's report also shows Donald Trump's dystopian future, bringing back the old, fossil-fuel intense, high-pollution current policies scenario, charting an unrealistic pathway where governments drag their energy policies backwards and rates of renewable energy adoption stall, leading to high energy prices and unmitigated climate disaster," said Tong. "At COP30, governments must reject this nightmare fantasy, uphold a just transition, and choose a fast, fair, and funded fossil fuel phaseout."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Progressives Denounce 'Morally Bankrupt' Bill to End Shutdown Without Healthcare Guarantee
"Make no mistake, people will die from these skyrocketing healthcare costs, paired with Republicans’ brutal Medicaid cuts," said Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Nov 12, 2025
As the US House appears likely to vote Wednesday to reopen the government, House progressives issued a scathing rebuke to their Democratic colleagues in the Senate who voted for a funding bill with no guarantee to protect the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans.
With the backing of leadership, the continued resolution was advanced by a group of eight Senate Democrats this weekend to end what has been the longest shutdown in US history.
In a joint statement, the 94-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) announced its opposition to the stopgap funding bill, which it said "includes no provisions to guarantee affordable healthcare and protect tens of millions of Americans from massive price spikes to their premiums, and imposes no strong guardrails to prevent the Trump administration from violating appropriations laws."
The bill agrees to fund the government until the end of 2026, without a deal to extend ACA subsidies that, if allowed to expire at the end of the year, will result in more than 20 million Americans seeing their insurance premiums more than double, according to analysis by KFF. It also introduces no new provisions to prevent President Donald Trump from refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress, nor does it address the nearly $1 trillion worth of Medicaid cuts passed in July’s GOP spending bill.
"The Senate-passed bill is a betrayal of working people and massively fails to address the urgent needs of the American people,” said CPC Deputy Chair Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). “Instead of working toward a fair deal, House Republicans refused to negotiate and abdicated their duty to serve the American people."
"The Senate-passed bill is morally bankrupt. It is indefensible to allow more than 20 million Americans to see their premiums double and let millions lose their healthcare coverage. Healthcare is a human right, and this bill contradicts that fundamental principle," Omar continued. "Make no mistake, people will die from these skyrocketing healthcare costs, paired with Republicans’ brutal Medicaid cuts."
After over a month of holding out, Democrats ultimately cracked under the White House's use of the shutdown to punish segments of the American public: Government workers hit with mass layoffs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients illegally denied this month’s benefits, and residents of blue states and cities stripped of congressionally appropriated funding for critical infrastructure.
While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted no on the deal to break the Democratic filibuster, he is widely understood to be the driving force behind the agreement, supporting the clique of eight Democratic senators who voted with the GOP—none of whom face reelection in 2026—to take the fall.
In the aftermath of the cave, Schumer has faced calls from several House Democrats to step down from leadership, including Reps. Ro Khanna (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Mike Levin (Calif.). However, none in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have joined in that push, even though any one of them could force a vote on his leadership within seven days.
As part of the Senate deal, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) promised that Republicans would hold a vote to extend healthcare subsidies within 40 days. But CPC chairman Greg Casar dismissed it as "nothing but a pinky promise."
“A deal that doesn’t reduce healthcare costs is a betrayal of millions of Americans counting on Democrats to fight for them,” Casar said. “Millions of families would pay the price.”
The CPC has said it will vote no when the bill comes to the House for a vote on Wednesday, as have most other Democrats.
“I will not support any deal that doesn’t improve the lives of working Americans,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-chair of the CPC political action committee. “End of story.”
In the GOP-controlled chamber, Democrats cannot stop the bill on their own. But Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) can only afford to lose two Republicans, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has already signaled that he will vote no.
While others, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), have expressed concern and disgust toward her GOP colleagues over the bill's lack of a solution to the looming healthcare apocalypse, there's no indication that enough Republicans will defect to kill the resolution.
On Tuesday, Republicans in the House voted down a Democratic amendment that would have extended ACA subsidies for three years.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular