January, 28 2016, 11:30am EDT
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
Divestment
- 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."
Ted Cruz
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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular