April, 12 2021, 12:00am EDT

US Voters Support Strong Government and Corporate Action to Curb Wall Street's Climate Impacts
Voters want the federal government to play an active role in reducing Wall Street’s impact on the climate and preventing climate-fueled economic crises.
WASHINGTON
Today, a new set of polling released by Data for Progress shows that US voters overwhelmingly support the federal government taking strong action to curb the climate impact of Wall Street in order to prevent economic crises driven by the financing of fossil fuels and other risky, high-emitting sectors.
The polling shows that voters want the Biden administration to apply its "whole-of-government" approach -- including action by the Treasury Department, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, and other financial regulators--to implement climate finance reforms that prevent major US banks and other financial institutions from further exacerbating the climate crisis and its economic ramifications.
Additionally, the polling shows that the vast majority US voters across demographic lines want more transparency about their bank or other financial institutions' contributions to climate change, and they believe that Wall Street firms' long-term climate pledges -- such as the recent wave of "net zero by 2050" commitments -- are not credible without concrete action plans.
Key findings from the polling include:
- A majority of voters (60 percent) agree the federal government should enforce more financial safeguards on big banks and insurers to prevent a future financial and economic crisis driven by climate change.
- A majority of voters (62 percent) agree the government should enact mandatory climate risk disclosure rules, including both the risks financial institutions face from climate change and their contributions to that risk through their financing.
- By a 35-percentage-point margin, voters prefer for the federal government to enforce climate risk disclosure rules rather than let Wall Street "self-regulate" their climate risk disclosures.
- Nearly two-thirds of voters (63 percent) agree the Treasury and Federal Reserve should play an active role in protecting the financial system from a future financial crisis driven by climate change.
- A majority of voters (62 percent) agree that banks making investments in industries that exacerbate climate change should also make investments in frontline communities.
More details from the poll are available HERE.
The new findings come as the Biden administration is reportedly finalizing an executive order to "develop a strategy on climate-related risks for public and private financial assets." Members of the Biden administration, such as Treasury Secretary Yellen and Acting SEC Chair Lee, have begun to highlight climate change as a key financial risk issue. However, climate actions by US financial regulators have been minimal thus far, and several key climate finance positions still remain unfilled.
Climate and financial reform advocates have put forward numerous policy recommendations in recent weeks and months, including, among others: Public Citizen and Americans for Financial Reform's "Climate Roadmap for U.S. Financial Regulation" report, Evergreen Action's five steps for SEC and Treasury, and Stop the Money Pipeline's priorities for the Biden administration.
In response to the new polling data, members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition issued the following statements:
Ben Cushing, Financial Advocacy Campaign Manager, Sierra Club: "The American people have paid the price before when Wall Street's risky and destructive practices have gone unchecked, and they clearly don't want to do it again. The Biden administration has made bold climate commitments and indicated it will treat climate change as a financial risk issue; this new polling shows it also has the overwhelming support of US voters to act on these promises. There's no time to waste."
Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director, Amazon Watch: "Climate policy has so far been left to markets, and now we're in a climate crisis. It's time that the US government take the reins back from Wall Street so we can assure the rapid, justice-centered decarbonization necessary for a livable planet."
Erika Thi Patterson, Climate and Environmental Justice Director, Action Center on Race and the Economy: "Wall Street has been financing environmental racism and climate destruction in Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities for generations. We can't trust these institutions to self-regulate us out of a climate crisis or to address decades of harm to frontline communities of color. The majority of voters want the federal government to stand up to Wall Street to protect front-line communities and our planet from further climate disaster."
Yevgeny Shrago, Policy Counsel, Public Citizen: "Banks, insurers and asset managers have been gambling with our health and our future for too long. Financial regulators have an obligation to use all of the tools that they already have to immediately start protecting the financial system and front-line communities from Wall Street's contributions to climate chaos."
Jason Opena Disterhoft, Climate and Energy Senior Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network: "By a ratio of 2.5 to 1, Americans say that financial institutions' 2050 commitments are 'empty promises' without a concrete action plan. Unless they start to immediately phase out their fossil and deforestation financing, banks' 2050 pledges will continue to be met with fully justified skepticism."
Tracey Lewis, Senior Policy Analyst, 350.org: "It is clear, a majority of Americans want our Central Bank to do their job, and protect the economy from climate chaos. The people are tired of the Federal Reserve's knee-jerk reflex of bailing out Wall Street, while dragging their feet on managing climate risk. It's high-time for some meaningful action from the Fed."
Dorothy Slater, Research Assistant, Revolving Door Project: "The American public has made clear it is hungry for legitimate financial regulation to confront the global climate crisis. Industry pressure on financial regulators to avoid inconvenient disruptions to their business models will be enormous, so we need strong climate leaders throughout the executive branch who are on the public's side. Details are consequential here, and we can't afford regulators who side with Wall Street over the planet."
Further background:
Read the full polling memo from Data for Progress here.
Find shareable graphics of all the topline findings from Data for Progress here.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500LATEST NEWS
Trump Tariffs Have Cost Average US Family Nearly $1,200 So Far
"The president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
Dec 11, 2025
As President Donald Trump persistently claims the economy is working for Americans, Democrats in the US House and Senate on Thursday released an analysis that puts a number to the recent polling that's found many Americans feel squeezed by higher prices: $1,200.
That's how much the average household in the US has paid in tariff costs over the past 10 months, according to the Joint Economic Committee—and costs are expected to continue climbing.
The Democrats, including Ranking Member Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), analyzed official US Treasury Department data on the amount of tariff revenue collected since the beginning of Trump's second term as he's imposed tariffs across the European Union and on dozens of other countries—some as high as 50%.
The White House has insisted the tariffs on imports will "pry open foreign markets" and force exporters overseas to pay more, resulting in lower prices for US consumers.
But the JEC combined the Treasury data with independent estimates of the percent of each tariff dollar that is paid by consumers, as companies pass along their higher import prices to them.
At first, US families were paying an average of less than $60 in tariff costs when Trump began the trade war in February and March.
But that amount shot up to more than $80 per family in April when he expanded the tariffs, and monthly costs have steadily increased since then.
In November, a total of $24.04 billion was paid by consumers in tariff costs—or $181.29 per family.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families."
From February-November, families have paid an average of $1,197.50 each, according to the JEC analysis.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families,” said Hassan.
If costs remain as high as they were over the next 12 months, families are projected to pay $2,100 per year as a result of Trump's tariffs.
The analysis comes a week after Republicans on a House Ways and Means subcommittee attempted to avoid the topic of tariffs—which have a 61% disapproval rating among the public, according to Pew Research—at a hearing on global competitiveness for workers and businesses.
"Rep. Jimmy Gomez [D-Calif.] read several quotes from [former Rep. Kevin] Brady [R-Texas] during his time in Congress stating that tariffs are taxes that impede economic growth. Brady, who chaired the Ways and Means Committee and drafted Trump’s first tax law in 2017 (and now works as a lobbyist), had no desire to discuss those quotes or the topic of tariffs," wrote Steve Warmhoff, federal policy director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Nor did Republicans address the point made by the Democrats’ witness, Kimberly Clausing, when she explained that Trump’s tariffs are the biggest tax increase on Americans (measured as a share of the economy) since 1982."
Clausing estimated that the tariffs will amount "to an annual tax increase of about $1,700 for an average household" if they stay at current levels, while Trump's decision to lower tariffs on goods such as meat, vegetables, fruits, and coffee last month amounted to just $35 in annual savings per household.
The JEC has also recently released analyses of annual household electricity costs under Trump, which were projected to go up by $100 for the average family despite the president's campaign pledge that "your energy bill within 12 months will be cut in half."
Last month the panel found that the average household is spending approximately $700 more per month on essentials like food, shelter, and energy since Trump took office.
“At a time when both parties should be working together to lower costs," said Hassan on Thursday, "the president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tlaib Rips Lawmakers Who 'Drool at the Opportunity to Fund War' While Opposing Healthcare for All
"They’re gutting healthcare and food assistance to pay for bombs and weapons. It’s a sick vicious cycle," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Dec 11, 2025
"Imagine if our government funded our communities like they fund war."
That was Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich.) response to the House's bipartisan passage Wednesday of legislation that authorizes nearly $901 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year, as tens of millions of Americans face soaring health insurance premiums and struggle to afford basic necessities amid the nation's worsening cost-of-living crisis.
Tlaib, who voted against the military policy bill, had harsh words for her colleagues who "drool at the opportunity to fund war and genocide, but when it comes to universal healthcare, affordable housing, and food assistance, they suddenly argue that we simply can’t afford it."
"Congress just authorized nearly a trillion dollars for death and destruction but cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," said Tlaib, referring to the budget reconciliation package that Republicans and President Donald Trump enacted over the summer.
"They’re gutting healthcare and food assistance to pay for bombs and weapons. It’s a sick vicious cycle," Tlaib continued. "Another record-breaking military budget is impossible to justify when Americans are sleeping on the streets, unable to afford groceries to feed their children, and racking up massive amounts of medical debt just for getting sick."
House passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) came as Republicans in both chambers of Congress pushed healthcare proposals that would not extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year, resulting in massive premium hikes for millions.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that a Senate Democratic plan to extend the ACA subsidies for three years would cost around $85 billion—a fraction of the military spending that House lawmakers just authorized.
The NDAA, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, approves $8 billion more in military spending than the Trump White House asked for in its annual budget request.
According to the National Priorities Project, that $8 billion "would be more than enough" to restore federal nutrition assistance to the millions expected to lose it due to expanded work requirements included in the Trump-GOP budget law.
"Our priorities are disgustingly misplaced," Tlaib said Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Don't Give the Pentagon $1 Trillion,’ Critics Say as House Passes Record US Military Spending Bill
"From ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by," said one group.
Dec 10, 2025
US House lawmakers on Wednesday approved a $900.6 billion military spending bill, prompting critics to highlight ways in which taxpayer funds could be better spent on programs of social uplift instead of perpetual wars.
The lower chamber voted 312-112 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026, which will fund what President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans call a "peace through strength" national security policy. The proposal now heads for a vote in the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.
Combined with $156 billion in supplemental funding included in the One Big Beautiful Bill signed in July by Trump, the NDAA would push military spending this fiscal year to over $1 trillion—a new record in absolute terms and a relative level unseen since World War II.
The House is about to vote on authorizing $901 billion in military spending, on top of the $156 billion included in the Big Beautiful Bill.70% of global military spending already comes from the US and its major allies.www.stephensemler.com/p/congress-s...
[image or embed]
— Stephen Semler (@stephensemler.bsky.social) December 10, 2025 at 1:16 PM
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) led opposition to the bill on Capitol Hill, focusing on what lawmakers called misplaced national priorities, as well as Trump's abuse of emergency powers to deploy National Guard troops in Democratic-controlled cities under pretext of fighting crime and unauthorized immigration.
Others sounded the alarm over the Trump administration's apparent march toward a war on Venezuela—which has never attacked the US or any other country in its nearly 200-year history but is rich in oil and is ruled by socialists offering an alternative to American-style capitalism.
"I will always support giving service members what they need to stay safe but that does not mean rubber-stamping bloated budgets or enabling unchecked executive war powers," CPC Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on social media, explaining her vote against legislation that "pours billions into weapons systems the Pentagon itself has said it does not need."
"It increases funding for defense contractors who profit from global instability and it advances a vision of national security rooted in militarization instead of diplomacy, human rights, or community well-being," Omar continued.
"At a time when families in Minnesota’s 5th District are struggling with rising costs, when our schools and social services remain underfunded, and when the Pentagon continues to evade a clean audit year after year, Congress should be investing in people," she added.
The Congressional Equality Caucus decried the NDAA's inclusion of a provision banning transgender women from full participation in sports programs at US military academies:
The NDAA should invest in our military, not target minority communities for exclusion.While we're grateful that most anti-LGBTQI+ provisions were removed, the GOP kept one anti-trans provision in the final bill—and that's one too many.We're committed to repealing it.
[image or embed]
— Congressional Equality Caucus (@equality.house.gov) December 10, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Advocacy groups also denounced the legislation, with the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project (NPP) noting that "from ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by."
"The last thing Congress should do is deliver $1 trillion into the hands of [Defense] Secretary Pete Hegseth," NPP program director Lindsay Koshgarian said in a statement Wednesday. "Under Secretary Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon has killed unidentified boaters in the Caribbean, sent the National Guard to occupy peaceful US cities, and driven a destructive and divisive anti-diversity agenda in the military."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


