December, 08 2019, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kassie Siegel, Center for Biological Diversity, (951) 961-7972, ksiegel@biologicaldiversity.org
Ryan Schleeter, Greenpeace USA, (415) 342-2386, rschleet@greenpeace.org
Thanu Yakupitiyage, 350.org, (413) 687-5160, thanu@350.org
500 Groups Call for Next President to Declare National Climate Emergency
10 Executive Actions in First 10 Days Could Jump-start Fossil Fuel Phaseout, Transition to Just Green Economy.
WASHINGTON
More than 500 conservation, environmental justice, youth, health, faith and labor groups today called on the next U.S. president to declare a national climate emergency. The plan urges the next administration to take 10 executive actions in its first 10 days in office to confront the climate crisis.
The groups' action plan calls for the use of existing executive powers to take bold and foundational steps on climate, including an immediate halt to new fossil fuel leases, infrastructure and exports. None of the actions require congressional support, so they can be taken by a new president regardless of political circumstances.
The 10 actions include significant investment in public renewable-energy generation, use of the Clean Air Act to slash greenhouse pollution, and prosecution of fossil fuel polluters. The groups are calling for the next president to ensure a just transition that protects workers and communities disproportionately harmed by the climate catastrophe and affected by the shift to a post-carbon pollution economy.
"Our house is on fire, but the government is failing to treat this like the emergency it is," said Jane Fonda, a climate activist with Fire Drill Fridays who supports the plan. "We are in the heart of the climate emergency now, and it is literally game over for our children and the planet if the next president does not act with the force and foresight of a first-responder-in-chief."
"Swift action to confront the climate emergency has to start the moment the next president enters the Oval Office," said attorney Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute and a lead author of a paper explaining the legal authority for each of the actions. "After years of denial and destructive policies, the new administration must lead a transformational effort to break free of dirty fossil fuels and create a fair clean-energy future."
Today's plan builds on the unprecedented global climate movement led by youth and supported by adults.
"The U.S. should lead in the progression toward climate justice and serve as a ground zero in decreasing economic inequality," said Isra Hirsi, the 16-year-old co-founder and partnerships director at U.S. Youth Climate Strike. "The president should not be hesitant in pursuing complete economic, infrastructural and environmental sustainability. The U.S. Youth Climate Strike and fellow youth climate strikers demand that the 2020 U.S. president declare a climate emergency immediately upon taking office and generate sufficient urgency in policy making. We urge executive action to accurately reflect the needs of those most harshly affected by climate change, including people of color and low-income communities."
The plan focuses on unlocking existing executive authority to start a wholesale transition to a regenerative and equitable economy.
"On day one, we expect the next president of the United States to lead with the urgency required to mitigate the climate crisis. These ten executive actions are the essential building blocks for the rapid and transformational change we need in order to address the catastrophic impacts already being experienced by present generations and worsening each year that world leaders play politics with peoples' lives," said Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, North America director of 350.org. "There can be no more compromise on how to address the climate crisis; we must phase out coal, oil, and gas immediately, make polluters pay for the necessary care and repair to our climate, and invest in a just transition that creates millions of jobs and prioritizes frontline communities, Indigenous communities, and communities of color. Our demands are clear, and we expect the next president to step up to address the crisis of our time."
"The first 100 days in office will be a critical test for our next president. This 10-point plan contains desperately needed actions that can be taken regardless of the situation in Congress, and taking it seriously reflects a real commitment to addressing the climate emergency that is already killing communities on a daily basis," said Collin Rees, senior campaigner at Oil Change U.S. "Ending handouts to Big Oil, Gas, and Coal, winding down fossil fuel extraction, investing in a truly just transition for workers and communities, and paving the way for a 100% renewable energy economy are no-brainers. The future of the planet is on the line, and we need a president willing to stand up to big polluters and do what needs to be done."
"The climate crisis cannot be limited to one of fossil fuel emissions and infrastructure," explained Anthony Rogers-Wright, policy coordinator for Climate Justice Alliance. "Frontline communities, already being hit first and worst by this crisis, have always understood that the climate crisis is a crisis of justice, and its root causes are white supremacy, patriarchy, and colonization. The next President cannot stand by, wait for Congress to act and preside over a perpetual interregnum -- we have no more time for that. This set of executive actions puts the fossil fuel, and other iniquitous industries that treat our communities like sacrifice zones on notice, while offering a suite of actions the next president can promulgate on day one to address systemic and institutionalized injustices. At the same time, we're also putting the next Congress on notice to get serious about dismantling this crisis, or the people will circumvent you with all available means."
"Millions of Americans are rising up to demand our government tackle the climate emergency and hold fossil fuel corporations accountable," said Charlie Jiang, climate campaigner for Greenpeace USA. "But oil and gas companies like ExxonMobil and Shell continue to block progress while drilling recklessly toward climate disaster. Our next president can and must lead from day one to protect workers and communities, speed the transition to 100 percent renewable energy, and say 'no more' to the fossil fuel executives standing in the way of a Green New Deal."
"The climate crisis is already here, and Americans will no longer accept weak efforts or excuses for inaction," said Nicole Ghio, senior fossil fuels program manager at Friends of the Earth. "The next president must be ready to take meaningful action on day one to address this emergency and prioritize people over profits. That means leaving fossil fuels behind, ensuring justice for frontline communities, and making polluters pay for the harm they cause."
"The United States government has long acted to advance the interests of corporations over people, and under Trump the government has lowered the bar even further. The U.S. continues to act at the behest of big polluters like the fossil fuel industry by ignoring science, blocking climate policy, and putting big polluter profit over the needs and demands of people," said Sriram Madhusoodanan, climate campaign director of Corporate Accountability. "The next administration must start a new chapter in U.S. history, kick polluters out of climate policymaking, make them pay for the damage they've knowingly caused, and take every action possible to advance urgently needed, internationally just climate action."
"The next president will enter office with the U.S. far behind on climate policy, with oil and gas extraction recklessly expanding, and atmospheric methane pollution spiking. But it will also be a time of unprecedented momentum to take bold and necessary climate action thanks to people driven movements fighting for change everywhere," said Lauren Pagel, policy director at Earthworks. "Executive action alone is not enough to make a just transition away from fossil fuels, but it is essential to bolster the progress from climate leadership happening now in state capitals and communities across the country."
"The climate crisis can't be solved by one country alone. The next administration must drastically ramp up climate action in the U.S., and it must also drastically increase our support for climate action in poorer countries," said Niranjali Amerasinghe, executive director of ActionAid USA. "The climate emergency is global, and the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world have the fewest resources to cope with its impacts.
This set of executive actions would put the U.S. on the right track toward doing its fair share of climate action. We do need Congress to act in order to provide the level of financial and technological support that developing countries truly need -- but with these executive actions, the next president has a huge set of tools in their toolbox to jumpstart proactive, justice-based solutions."
"If the next administration is to drive down climate pollution to a safe level it will require strong executive actions right out of the gate," said Patrick McCully, climate and energy program director for Rainforest Action Network. "These actions must be ambitious, science-based, quick to scale, driven by the values of equity and justice, and the administration must be unconcerned by the inevitable squealing from the fossil fuel industry and its financial and political backers."
"The science is very clear: In order to stand a chance of avoiding the worst effects of climate chaos, our society must transition off fossil fuels almost entirely in the coming decade. This will require our next president to kickstart the urgent transition on day one," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "The rapid transition to a clean, renewable energy future should start with a ban on fracking and all new fossil fuel infrastructure -- period."
"Climate change is an existential threat not only to Americans, but to people and communities across the globe. Our next President can't waste any time -- tackling the climate crisis needs to be a Day One priority," said Richard Wiles, executive director at the Center for Climate Integrity. "That can't happen without addressing the roots of the climate crisis and those responsible: Big Oil. The fossil fuel industry knew their products caused climate change and spent the last 30 years lying about it. Any real solution must first hold the industry accountable for its decades of deception and the long-term consequences that resulted."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Trump DOJ Sides With Roundup Manufacturer Over Cancer Victims in Supreme Court Case
An attorney at Food & Water Watch said the DOJ sent a "clear message... to sick Americans harmed by toxic pesticides: Trump has Bayer’s back, not theirs."
Dec 02, 2025
The Trump administration is pushing for the US Supreme Court to shield the manufacturer of Roundup from thousands of state lawsuits alleging that its widely used herbicide product causes cancer.
On Monday, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer recommended that the high court agree to hear a challenge to a Missouri jury's verdict in 2023 that awarded $1.25 million to a man named John Durnell, who claimed that the product caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bayer, the agribusiness giant that purchased the manufacturer of Roundup, the agribusiness giant Monsanto, in 2018, immediately challenged the verdict.
In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as "probably carcinogenic to humans" based on "limited evidence."
That evidence became less limited in 2019, when a prominent meta-analysis by a team of environmental health researchers found that people exposed to glyphosate at the highest levels had a 41% higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma than those who weren't.
There are nearly 4,500 Roundup claims currently pending in federal court, and at least 24 cases have gone to trial since October 2023. They make up just a fraction of the more than 170,000 claims filed.
According to Bloomberg, Bayer has already been forced to pay out more than $10 billion in verdicts and settlements over the product, which has caused a massive drain on the company's stock price.
In what it said was an effort to “manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” Bayer removed glyphosate-based herbicides from the residential market in 2023, switching to formulas that “rely on alternative active ingredients.”
That didn't stop the lawsuits from coming. Durnell's victory was the first successful case brought against Bayer outside California, the only state that labels the product as carcinogenic. That in Missouri opened the floodgates in other states, and plaintiffs subsequently won sizable payouts in Georgia and Pennsylvania.
But now the Trump administration is trying to help the company skirt further accountability. Sauer, who is tasked with arguing for the government in nearly every Supreme Court case, filed a 24-page brief stating that there is a lack of clarity on whether states have the authority to determine whether Bayer and Monsanto violated the law by failing to warn customers about potential cancer risks from Roundup.
Bayer argues that these cases are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which forbids states from enacting labeling requirements more stringent than those recommended by the federal government.
Sauer agreed with Bayer, stating in the brief that the US Environmental Protection Agency "has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings."
In 2016 and again in 2020, the EPA indeed classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" following agency assessments. However, in 2022, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals voided this assessment, finding that the agency applied “inconsistent reasoning” in its review of the science.
Among the justifications for the ruling were that the EPA relied heavily on unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies submitted to regulators by Monsanto and other companies that manufacture glyphosate. The agency also largely disregarded findings from animal studies included by the IARC, which showed a strong link between glyphosate and cancer.
"The World Health Organization has recognized glyphosate as a probable carcinogen while the EPA continues to twist itself into pretzels to come to the opposite conclusion," Lori Ann Burd, a staff attorney and director of the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program, told Common Dreams.
Notably, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. built his national profile campaigning against the dangers of pesticides and railing against regulatory capture by big business.
Kennedy served as an attorney for Dewayne Johnson, the first plaintiff to win damages against Monsanto in 2018, where a jury determined that Roundup had contributed to his cancer.
"If my life were a Superman comic, Monsanto would be my Lex Luthor," Kennedy said in a 2020 Facebook post. "I've seen this company as the enemy of every admirable American value."
During Kennedy's 2024 presidential run, he pledged to "ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries."
But after he was sworn in as President Donald Trump's HHS Secretary, he began to sing a different tune. As Investigate Midwest noted, his "Make America Healthy Again" commission's introductory report made no mention of glyphosate.
Meanwhile, he reassured the pesticide industry that it had nothing to worry about: "There’s a million farmers who rely on glyphosate. 100% of corn in this country relies on glyphosate. We are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model," he said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.
The Trump EPA has deregulated toxic chemicals across the board over the past year. It rolled back protections against per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as "forever chemicals," in drinking water, which have many documented health risks. It has also declined to ban the widely used insecticide chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders in children.
Elizabeth Kucinich, the former director of policy at the Center for Food Safety, described the US Department of Justice's effort to shield Bayer as another "betrayal of MAHA health promises." Her husband, the two-time Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, worked as the campaign manager for RFK Jr.'s 2024 presidential bid.
“This is regulatory capture, not public protection,” she said. “This action shields chemical manufacturers from accountability by elevating a captured federal regulatory process over the lived harm of real people. That is anti-life, and it is exactly what millions of MAHA voters believed they were voting against.”
Food & Water Watch staff attorney Dani Replogle said the DOJ filing "encourages the Supreme Court to slam judiciary doors in the faces of cancer patients across the country."
"No political posturing can undo the clear message this brief sends to sick Americans harmed by toxic pesticides," she continued. "Trump has Bayer’s back, not theirs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Evil and Disgusting': From Sabrina Carpenter to Franklin the Turtle, 'Violent' Memes by Trump Officials Rebuked
"This is a government that is not only full of sadists, but has elevated sadism to a place of honor in politics and policy," said one journalist.
Dec 02, 2025
Pop star Sabrina Carpenter and Kids Can Press, publisher of the popular Franklin the Turtle children's book series, are shaming President Donald Trump's administration for using their work to promote its policies of mass deportation and extrajudicial killing.
On Monday, the official White House X account posted a video showing federal agents chasing, apprehending, and detaining purported undocumented immigrants that featured Carpenter's song "Juno" as its soundtrack.
On Tuesday morning, Carpenter angrily denounced the White House for using her song in a mass deportation video.
"This video is evil and disgusting," she wrote in response. "Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda."
An administration spokesperson responded to Carpenter's message by continuing to reference her lyrics, and said that "anyone who would defend these sick monsters" that the administration is deporting "must be stupid, or is it slow," a line lifted from her hit song "Manchild."
As noted by the Guardian, Carpenter is just the latest popular artist to object to the Trump White House using their work in propaganda videos, as Beyoncé, Olivia Rodrigo, Kenny Loggins, and Foo Fighters have also attacked the White House for hijacking their songs.
Kids Can Press, meanwhile, slammed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he posted a meme depicting Franklin the Turtle launching air-to-surface missiles at the boats of supposed "narco-terrorists" in the Caribbean.
In a statement, the publisher said that it "strongly" condemned "any denigrating, violent, or unauthorized use of Franklin’s name or image," such the one Hegseth posted on social media.
“Franklin the Turtle is a beloved Canadian icon who has inspired generations of children and stands for kindness, empathy, and inclusivity,” the published emphasized.
Hegseth posted the meme shortly after the Washington Post reported last week that US defense forces had conducted a "double-tap" strike against a suspected drug boat in September with the express purpose of killing two men who had survived the initial strike on the vessel.
Many legal scholars consider such an action to be murder or an overt war crime, and Hegseth and the Trump White House in recent days have been trying to shift responsibility for authorizing the second strike to Adm. Frank Bradley.
Writing in his Substack page on Tuesday, journalist Paul Waldman noted that Hegseth's attitude toward extrajudicial killing shouldn't be a surprise since he had previously lobbied Trump during his first term in office to pardon convicted war criminals.
"This is a government that is not only full of sadists, but has elevated sadism to a place of honor in politics and policy," he wrote. "If you’re one of Trump’s underlings and you aren’t publicly expressing glee at the prospect of punishing and abusing those with less power, then you won’t really fit in. That’s the context in which we have to view this event."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire-Funded ‘Trump Accounts’ for Kids Slammed as 'Another Tax Shelter' for the Rich
"If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare," said one children's advocate.
Dec 02, 2025
After Silicon Valley CEO Michael Dell and his wife, philanthropist Susan Dell, announced Tuesday their plan to invest $6.25 billion in seed money in individual investment accounts for 25 million American children, adding to the number of kids who would receive so-called "Trump Accounts" that were included in the Republican spending bill this year, advocates acknowledged that a direct cash investment could feasibly help some families.
But the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) was among those wondering whether the Dells' investment of $6.25 billion—a fraction of their $148 billion fortune—would ultimately benefit wealthy investors far more.
“While we support direct investments in families, the Trump Accounts being hailed by the White House are a policy solution that doesn’t meet most families’ needs,” said Amy Matsui, the vice president of income security and child care at NWLC. “As currently structured, these accounts will just become another tax shelter for the wealthiest, while the overwhelming majority of American families, who are struggling to cover basic costs like food, childcare, and housing, will be hard pressed to find the extra money that could turn the seed money into a meaningful investment."
The Dells, who are behind Dell Technologies, announced the investment plan months after President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law. The tax and spending law includes a provision that would start an investment account for every US citizen child born between January 2025-December 2028, with a $1,000 investment from the US government.
As Jezebel reported, the couple's contribution would got to an additional 25 million children, up to age 10, who were born prior to the 2025 cut-off date for the initial Trump Accounts.
"Around 80% of children born between 2016-2024 would theoretically qualify, although there are cutoffs based on household income: Applying families would have to live in ZIP codes where the median household income is less than $150,000 per year," wrote Jim Vorel.
In the corporate press, the Dells were applauded for making what they called the largest single private charitable donation to US children, but Vorel questioned the real-world impact of "a gift of $250, thrown vaguely in the direction of millions of American families by members of our billionaire ruling class."
"What can that money realistically do in terms of providing for a child’s future?" he wrote. "Is it the seed that is going to allow them to go to college, to buy a house some day? Does that really seem likely? Or are we primarily talking about billionaires running PR campaigns for a president who recently hit new second term lows in his overall approval numbers?"
The success of the individual investment accounts hinges on whether Americans and their employers—who can contribute up to $2,500 per year without counting it as taxable income—will be able to consistently and meaningfully invest money in the accounts until their children turn 18, considering that about a quarter of US households are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a recent poll.
"Do you know many families in 2025 that would describe themselves as having a spare $5,000 per year to immediately start investing in a government-backed investment account, even if that might be relatively sound financial strategy? Or are the families in your orbit already scraping to get by, without being able to commit much attention to investing in the future?" asked Vorel, adding that the artificial intelligence "bubble" is widely expected to soon burst and drag the stock market in which Trump is urging families to invest "into a deep pit of despair."
"As is so often the case, the families most benefited by the concept of Trump Accounts will be those ones who are already on the best financial footing, aka the wealthiest Americans," he wrote.
Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass was among those who said the Dells' investment only served to demonstrate how "they should pay more in taxes" to ensure all US children can benefit from public, not private, investment in education, healthcare, and other social supports.
"The government should not be funding only what can secure the sympathies of erratic rich people," said Cohn.
The NWLC argued the Trump Accounts are an example of the White House's embrace of "pronatalism"—the belief that the government should incentivize Americans to have more children—but fall short of being a policy that would actually make a measurable positive impact on families.
“In the end, this policy mirrors the rest of the law: another giveaway to the richest Americans that leaves everyone else further behind," said Matsui. "If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare, an expanded Child Tax Credit, and undoing the historic cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


