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
February, 06 2019, 11:00pm EDT
Contact:
Margaret Klein Salamon PhD, Executive Director
margaret@climatemobilization.org (347) 670-3407
Ezra Silk, Policy and Strategy Director
ezra@climatemobilization.org
Green New Deal is a Breakthrough
The Green New Deal resolution sets a new standard for the climate movement and for presidential candidates.
WASHINGTON
The Climate Mobilization (TCM) recognizes the Green New Deal resolution, introduced today by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as the most realistic and important statement to date by national leaders in the United States regarding the severity of the Climate Emergency and the opportunity to address this crisis through an economic and social mobilization, at a scale and speed not seen since World War II.
This resolution sets a new standard for any presidential candidate who wishes to be taken seriously on climate. Organizations and individuals in the climate movement should now make a commitment to a ten year transition to a zero emissions economy a prerequisite for endorsing any candidate for office.
The Climate Mobilization has been working with congressional staff and advisors to help shape this resolution. Representative Ocasio-Cortez signed our Pledge to Mobilize ahead of her primary contest in 2018 and received our endorsement. She has gone above and beyond to advance the concept of Climate Mobilization and we could not be more appreciative.
"Senator Markey and Representative Ocasio-Cortez are telling the truth about what it will actually take to prevent climate catastrophe--a WWII-scale Climate Mobilization that eliminates greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years and draws down excess GHGs from the atmosphere." Margaret Klein Salamon, The Climate Mobilization Executive Director, said in response.
"This resolution and the monument behind represents a watershed moment, when America began to face up to the reality of the Climate Emergency and what must be done to save our civilization," added Ezra Silk, The Climate Mobilization's Director of Policy and Strategy.
The resolution is not perfect, however. It calls for reaching net zero emissions, but not for drawing down all excess greenhouse gases in order to a restore a safe climate. It relies on the deeply flawed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and calls for global zero emissions by 2050. This is way too late. In addition, the temperature targets set by the IPCC are irresponsible and could trigger runaway climate catastrophe. The earth is too hot right now and we need to stay well below 1.5C and then reverse global warming down to 0.5C or less to establish a safe climate. We encourage the Green New Deal authors and the climate movement to realize that the IPCC is not the right group to draw the parameters of our emergency climate response. It also does not comprehensively factor in or address the reality of humanity's overshoot of ecological limits in areas beyond greenhouse gases.
The Climate Mobilization calls for the entire world to decarbonize by 2030, and calls on the United States to make global mobilization for zero emissions and drawdown our top foreign policy priority.
In addition, The Climate Mobilization calls for the immediate ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure and the early retirement of coal mining and oil and gas drilling, within ten years. Keeping fossil fuels in the ground is critical to preventing the collapse of civilization and the natural world.
"Today is a good day for the country, for the climate movement, and for all humanity. We will continue to fight to protect humanity and the natural world by telling the truth about the Climate Emergency and addressing it at the speed and scale required," added Salamon.
LATEST NEWS
‘People Can’t Afford Rent,' Critics Say as White House Boasts of Trump’s Plan for Gold-Covered Arch
"While Americans worry about skyrocketing costs and another endless war, President Trump is focused on a taxpayer-funded vanity project," said Rep. Don Beyer.
Apr 10, 2026
On the same day that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that inflation spiked at its fastest monthly rate in four years, the Trump administration unveiled renderings of President Donald Trump's proposed gold-covered 250-foot-tall arch to be built at Memorial Circle in Washington, DC.
The renderings, which were produced by architecture firm Harrison Design and posted on social media by the White House's rapid response account, show a gigantic arch that would be flanked on its corners by four gold lions and topped by a 60-foot-tall gold statue of what appears to be an angel.
🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/zcH5TtaOu7
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 10, 2026
According to a Friday report in The Washington Post, some preservationists have expressed concerns that the arch, which would be more than twice the height of the Lincoln Monument, would disproportionately tower over the DC skyline, and would block views of Arlington National Cemetery.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) slammed the president for pushing construction of a gaudy gold-covered arch at a time when Americans are struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis worsened by his war in Iran.
"While Americans worry about skyrocketing costs and another endless war," he wrote in a social media post, "President Trump is focused on a taxpayer-funded vanity project that would choke traffic, block our skyline, and tower over sacred ground where those who served our nation are buried, including my own parents and sister."
Beyer added that the arch is "about Donald Trump's ego," and vowed, "we're going to stop it."
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) responded to the renderings by reminding the White House that "Americans can't afford groceries."
Progressive activist Nina Turner had a similar reaction to Clark, posting that "people can’t afford rent" in response to the renderings.
Podcaster Brian Taylor Cohen contrasted the renderings of the arch with a statement Trump made earlier this month when he said "it’s not possible" for the federal government "to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things," because it needs to fund wars instead.
University of Missouri English professor Karen Piper also remarked on the opportunity cost of building the arch, along with other assorted Trump projects.
"This is why they're going to take away your Social Security, saying we can't afford it," she wrote. "Ballrooms, arches, and Don Jr. draining the Treasury."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been named as a contender for the Democratic Party's 2028 presidential nomination, responded to the arch renderings by accusing Trump of "doing everything he can to wreck this country—this time with our nation's capital."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) took issue with the decision to inscribe the phrase "one nation under God" at the top of the arch.
"That phrase came from Cold War propaganda, not our Founders," observed Huffman. "Trump stamping it on his vanity arch tells you everything about what this project is: a Christian nationalist monument, paid for with your tax dollars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DNC Half-Measures Condemning Dark Money Won’t Cut It, Says Sanders as He Demands Total Ban
"Billionaire-funded super PACs—AIPAC, AI, crypto, and others—are spending hundreds of millions to defeat any candidate who crosses them. They should be banned from Democratic primaries. Period."
Apr 10, 2026
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday called for a total ban on dark money a day after the Democratic National Committee voted down a resolution that would have condemned the leading US pro-Israel lobby, which has spent nine figures on US elections over the past five years.
The DNC Resolutions Committee rejected the resolution, which condemned “the growing influence” of dark money and corporate-backed outside spending on Democratic races, specifically calling out the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. United Democracy Project, AIPAC's dark money arm, unleashed a $100 million blitz targeting progressives during the 2024 election cycle.
When combined with other pro-Israel lobby groups, like GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson's Preserve America PAC, that figure soars to over $200 million, according to the public interest group AIPAC Tracker.
Instead, the DNC panel opted for a broader resolution decrying the influence of dark money—defined as undisclosed independent campaign contributions—in the 2026 Democratic primaries.
"The DNC just passed a resolution condemning dark money," Sanders (Vt.) said Friday on X. "That’s a start, but not enough."
"Billionaire-funded super PACs—AIPAC, AI, crypto, and others—are spending hundreds of millions to defeat any candidate who crosses them," the senator added. "They should be banned from Democratic primaries. Period."
Sanders campaigned twice for president, centering his opposition to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which effectively ushered in the modern era of secret unlimited political spending.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money spending in federal elections has skyrocketed from negligible amounts before 2010 to over $1.9 billion in the 2024 cycle alone, with over $4 billion in total undisclosed outside financing following the high court's contentious ruling.
Polling has repeatedly affirmed that support for Israel—which stands accused in the International Court of Justice of committing genocide in Gaza and has already been found by the ICJ to be illegally occupying Palestine under apartheid rule—is detrimental to Democrats.
The DNC's own suppressed postmortem of the 2024 presidential election also showed that former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' unconditional support for Israel cost Harris votes.
As AIPAC has grown more toxic to US voters amid a litany of Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank under the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—a growing number of Democrats, including some who once welcomed the group's support, are turning their backs on the lobby.
“AIPAC really is not an organization that I think today I would want any part of," Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said last month after affiliated groups poured $22 million into House races in his state.
While AIPAC cash was instrumental in unseating congressional progressives including former Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), its largesse failed to oust others, including Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
Sanders wasn't the only one to criticize the DNC's rejection of the anti-AIPAC resolution.
“The American people are clear: They want our government to invest in life and stop funding the bombs that are destroying lives in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran," Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller said Friday.
"The DNC’s failure to pass this simple resolution condemning the outsized spending of an extremist and Republican-funded group like AIPAC in Democratic primaries shows how wildly out of touch the party is with its base," Miller added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Human Rights Groups Denounce Trump Plans to Send Cubans Fleeing Impacts of Blockade to Guantánamo
“The continued use of Guantánamo Bay, which has an extensive history of abuse and torture, is horrific and unconscionable."
Apr 10, 2026
Dozens of human rights organizations sent a letter to Congress on Friday, decrying threats by US military officials to detain Cubans who flee to the US to escape President Donald Trump's crushing economic blockade at Guantánamo Bay.
The 86 groups, which include the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Victims of Torture, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and Refugees International, zeroed in on remarks made by US Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, the commander of the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last month about how the military would respond to the mass influx of Cuban refugees to the United States.
The risks of a refugee exodus from Cuba were sparked in January after Trump tightened the already brutal regime of economic sanctions by threatening to slap harsh tariffs on any nation that provided oil to Cuba. The result has been a crippling fuel shortage that has caused routine blackouts and disrupted every facet of daily life, from hospital care to food cultivation.
Trump enacted the fuel blockade in what he has described as an effort to coerce the government to step down from power and make way for one more amenable to the interests of American companies. With Cuba in a weakened state, he has threatened to "take" the island outright using American military force.
The United Nations has warned that if the blockade is prolonged, it could bring about a total "humanitarian collapse.”
Asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) about what would be done if this caused a mass influx of Cuban refugees to the US, Donovan said they had an executive order that would involve coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security to handle a "mass migration event."
Donovan said it would include using the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, “where we would set up a camp to deal with those migrants or any overflow from any situation in Cuba itself.”
“Given the well-documented history of abusive and unlawful detention at Guantánamo, any proposal to use the base for additional detention is deeply troubling and unacceptable," the organizations wrote on Friday,
They note the prison’s history as a site used for extrajudicial torture during the global War on Terror and as a holding facility for other migrant groups, including Haitian refugees and asylum seekers who fled a military coup in the 1990s, many of whom were subjected to substandard living conditions.
"Time and again, we have seen the US government try to use Guantánamo as a legal black hole to mistreat migrants, subjecting them to inhumane conditions and interfering with both their right to seek protection in the United States and their right to counsel," said Pedro Sepulveda, a litigation fellow for the International Refugee Assistance Project.
Despite pledges from multiple presidents to close the camp for good, it remains open more than two decades after former President George W. Bush began using it to detain hundreds of terrorism suspects without trial.
Trump has expanded its use during his second term, using it to temporarily hold more than 700 migrants since February 2025—including dozens of Cubans rounded up by immigration agents.
Trump’s use of the camp marks the first time it has been used to hold people detained in the continental United States. A Washington Post investigation from February found that those in the facility were subject to weeks-long periods of isolation, invasive strip searches, and denied contact with lawyers.
The human rights groups called on Congress to block any funding that could be used to detain Cubans fleeing Trump's blockade and to shut down Guantánamo Bay for good.
"The president has held Guantánamo detention as a threat over the heads of migrants in the United States and now threatens the same over Cubans who may be forced to flee their homes as a result of his own actions," said Michael Galant, the senior research and outreach associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Yumna Rizvi, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Victims of Torture, said, “If the Trump administration is worried about Cuban migration, the solution is simple: Stop intentionally impoverishing the Cuban people through an embargo and fuel blockade.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular