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
'Unspeakably Cruel': Trump Freezes Green Cards to 235,000 Refugees Admitted Under Biden
"These are refugees who fled persecution... refugees who had been more thoroughly vetted than any other population before entering our country," said the head of the Refugee Council USA.
Nov 26, 2025
The Trump administration has halted the distribution of green cards to around 235,000 refugees admitted during the Biden administration, requiring all their claims to be reassessed, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press.
The AP reported on Tuesday that the abrupt change will not only apply to refugees awaiting green cards, but that some who have already received them could have their permanent residency status revoked.
The memo, signed by the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Joseph Edlow, claims that during the previous administration, “expediency” and “quantity” were prioritized over the “detailed screening and vetting" of those who applied for refugee status.
Refugee status can be claimed by those outside the United States who fear persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group. Most refugees who have entered the US in recent years come from nations in the midst of severe upheaval from civil war or other forms of political instability.
Between October 2021 and September 2024, the Biden administration admitted 185,640 refugees. Last year, more than 100,000 were admitted, with the largest numbers coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and Syria.
The memo states that these refugees will be subject to new investigations into their claims of past persecution or fear of persecution in their home countries. It also says USCIS will review the possible grounds for inadmissibility, which could place them at risk of losing their status. Those the agency determines did not meet the criteria for admission will have "no right to appeal."
In addition to reassessing the validity of their claims of persecution, the review process will also reportedly involve an assessment of a refugee's potential for "assimilation" into the United States.
The Refugee Council USA (RCUSA) said the directive violates the Refugee Act of 1980, which states that refugees shall be considered for a green card after one year of residence in the US.
"By ordering reinterviews and halting permanent residence processing for those admitted during the previous administration, the Trump administration is placing the entire resettlement system into legal limbo," the group said.
The AP reports that the lives of many refugees in the US have been thrown into chaos by the rule change. One Syrian refugee who fled the nation's deadly civil war roughly a decade ago said he now feared that he and his family would be sent back.
“It was, and it still is a dream to be in America,” said the man, who remained anonymous for fear of being targeted by US authorities. “If they start sending back people to their home countries, you don’t have the rights that you have here and the opportunities.”
Despite the administration's claims, refugees already undergo an extraordinarily long and thorough vetting process to enter the US, which can take up to 36 months. The process involves screening of biographic and biometric information, extensive interviews, and security screenings by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense.
“This administration’s disdain for refugees and newcomers is well-documented, yet it continues to find new ways to outdo itself," said Rick Santos, president and CEO of Church World Service (CWS), which provides support for refugees around the globe. "The decision to review and reinterview resettled refugees—who have already passed through the most stringent of vetting processes—is not merely a relitigation, but a retraumatizing of individuals who were assured of their safety and a chance to live free of persecution."
“Just the threat of this is unspeakably cruel," said Mark Hetfield, the president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, in a comment to CNN. "To threaten refugees with taking away their status would be retraumatizing and a vicious misuse of taxpayer money."
CWS argued that "the resources it will take to relitigate refugees’ cases could be much better spent addressing USCIS’s backlog of approximately 4 million cases."
As Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted, "The same administration that redefined refugee status to cover white South Africans is now going to drown in red tape tens of thousands of refugees approved years ago, potentially even seeking to strip some of their status and deport them."
In October, the Trump administration announced that it would limit the number of refugees accepted during this fiscal year to a historic low of 7,500, down from over 100,000 under former President Joe Biden, with most spots going to the white descendants of the Europeans who subjected South Africa's majority Black population to apartheid for decades. The first of those refugees was admitted to the US earlier this week, just before the green card freeze was announced.
“The latest refugee policy announcement from the Trump administration is astounding, unprecedented, heartbreaking, and cruel,” said John Slocum, executive director of RCUSA. "These are refugees who fled persecution on account of their religion, race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Refugees who had been more thoroughly vetted than any other population before entering our country. Refugees who had been promised, not a temporary sojourn, but a permanent grant of freedom, safety, and opportunity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Washington Homeowners Sue Big Oil Over Soaring Insurance Costs
"Big Oil took its playbook directly from the minds of Big Tobacco and think they can get away with the same deliberate disinformation campaign, coercing the public to pay for the very harms they suffer."
Nov 26, 2025
Efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate emergency continued in Washington state this week as homeowners sued oil giants and a trade association over their decades of lies and rising insurance premium rates.
"As natural disasters become more costly, homeowners foot the bill," explains the complaint, filed on Tuesday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington against the American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell and its subsidiary Equilon Enterprises.
"In 2023, a significant number of natural catastrophes... impacted the United States, at an estimated cost of $114 billion, of which approximately $80 billion was insured," the filing notes. "In the state of Washington alone, homeowners' rates have increased by a total of 51% over the past six years. But climate change has driven insurance premium increases throughout the country because insurance generally operates by pooling risks."
There are two named plaintiffs in the proposed class action suit. Margaret Hazard lives in Carson, an "area that is very dry and prone to forest fires." Since she began paying for home insurance in 2017, her premiums have doubled, and she recently had to switch to a policy with less coverage. Richard Kennedy of Normandy Park has also paid for homeowner's insurance since then; his premiums have gone from $1,012.10 to $2,149.18, an increase of nearly 113%.
"This case is about holding the fossil fuel defendants accountable for the increased homeowners' insurance premiums that their coordinated and deliberate scheme to hide the truth about climate change and the effects of burning fossil fuels has brought about and for their conduct contributing to climate change; a cost the highly profitable trillion-dollar industry can easily afford, and one that it should not be permitted to simply pass along to the everyday people who are presently bearing the burden of these increased premiums," the complaint states.
The document highlights that "defendants have known since at least the 1960s, based on their own internal scientific research, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution caused by the unchecked sales of its highly profitable petroleum products would inevitably lead to 'catastrophic' weather-related consequences with 'considerable significance to civilization' and that only a narrow window of time existed in which to act before severe consequences would result."
Big Oil "took this internal calculus seriously," the filing details, but "rather than inform the public, or... undertake meaningful remedial steps, defendants chose instead to protect their profits by engaging in a massive, deliberate, decadeslong misinformation campaign intended to sow doubt in the minds of the media [and] business leaders, and deceive the public and consumers about the conclusions they themselves had reached about the substantial consequences that the sale of their products would have."
As journalists and academic researchers have revealed what fossil fuel companies knew, and when, over the past decade—while extreme weather, from rapidly intensifying hurricanes to historic wildfires, ravaged US communities—various climate liability lawsuits have been filed across the country by states, municipalities, tribes, and individuals.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity's national tracker, in Washington state alone, there are at least three other cases: two brought by tribes in December 2023 and a wrongful death suit filed in May by the daughter of Juliana Leon, who died during the extreme heatwave that plagued the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The cases have often drawn comparisons to the tobacco industry's deception, and the one filed this week is no exception. In fact, the plaintiffs for the new federal suit in Washington are represented by the law firm Hagens Berman, whose managing partner and cofounder, Steve Berman, served as special assistant attorney general for 13 states against Big Tobacco.
"Big Oil took its playbook directly from the minds of Big Tobacco and think they can get away with the same deliberate disinformation campaign, coercing the public to pay for the very harms they suffer," Berman said in a statement. "We see a direct correlation between Big Oil's lies and the alarming increase of homeowners insurance due to the rising threat of natural disasters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Research Shows True Death Toll From Israeli Genocide in Gaza Could Be 126,000 or Even Higher
"All those responsible for this mass slaughter must face accountability," said one campaigner in response to the new figures, "starting with Netanyahu and other members of his openly racist, genocidal, and warmongering regime.”
Nov 26, 2025
Israel's two-year assault on Gaza has left a catastrophic death toll that is even worse than most official estimates, according to research from European researchers.
A study released on Tuesday by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany and the Center for Demographic Studies in Spain found that "the current violent death toll" in Gaza "likely exceeds 100,000" since the start of the war in October 2023.
In fact, the researchers estimate that the total death toll from the war among Palestinians in Gaza is between 99,997 and 125,915, with a median estimate of over 112,000 killed. Even the lowest death toll estimate in the study is significantly higher than the death toll estimates in most media reports, which as of this week totaled roughly 70,000 Palestinians killed.
The researchers said that the wide range of death toll estimates is a reflection of "distorted and incomplete data from conflict zones" that make precise estimates difficult.
Researcher Irena Chen, who co-led the project, told Turkish publication AA that "we will never know the exact number of dead" and added that "we are only trying to estimate as accurately as possible what a realistic order of magnitude might be."
The study also found that the two-year Israeli assault led to a precipitous plunge in life expectancy. According to researcher Ana Gómez-Ugarte, life expectancy in Gaza "fell by 44% in 2023 and by 47% in 2024 compared with what it would have been without the war—equivalent to losses of 34.4 and 36.4 years, respectively."
The study's final estimates were based on data from multiple public sources, including including the Gaza Ministry of Health (GMoH), the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B'Tselem), the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN-IGME), and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that the new study was "further evidence of genocide" being carried out by the Israeli government.
Edward Ahmed Mitchell, deputy executive director for CAIR, called the study "only the latest reason why our government must stop sending American taxpayer dollars to Israel and why international courts must hold Israel accountable for its crimes." Mitchell added that "all those responsible for this mass slaughter must face accountability, starting with Netanyahu and other members of his openly racist, genocidal, and warmongering regime."
A report released by UN Conference on Trade and Development earlier this week found that Israel's genocidal assault has had a devastating impact on Gaza's economy, finding that its entire population is now living below the poverty line, with per-capita gross domestic product falling to just $161, one of the lowest figures in the world.
Additionally, the report found that the unemployment rate in Gaza was as high as 80%, while inflation in the exclave surged to nearly 240%, as the Israeli military blockade caused a widespread famine by preventing basic necessities from reaching Gaza residents.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular