

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Karyn Strickler
President and Founder
Vote Climate U.S. PAC is the only website in the country to provide a climate change Voter's Guide for candidates for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Governors and Statehouses (partial). (Always click the green + button for detailed research.) Like most Voter's Guides, we score incumbents on pivotal climate votes in Congress.
Vote Climate U.S. PAC is the only website in the country to provide a climate change Voter's Guide for candidates for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Governors and Statehouses (partial). (Always click the green + button for detailed research.) Like most Voter's Guides, we score incumbents on pivotal climate votes in Congress. We also assess a candidate's position: what do candidates say about the issue; leadership: what do they do; and putting a fee on carbon polluters.
In 2022 for the first time, we indicate if a candidate supports Roe v. Wade. We see a strong connection between climate and choice, so while it is not part of our Climate Calculations, we have included support or opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, in our national climate change voter's guide.
According to Cook Political Report, every Vote Climate U.S. PAC priority candidate including: John Fetterman (D), Pennsylvania; U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D), Nevada; U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock (D), Georgia; U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D), Arizona and Mandela Barnes (D), Wisconsin, is in a toss-up race.
"Our priority U.S. Senate races are all close and could go either way on Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th. They are all critical for climate-action, reproductive choice and American democracy itself. There is no comparison between our priority candidates and their opponents on climate change. Four of five of the opponents have a Climate Calculation of 7.5 or less and the other one scores 28.75, all failing grades on any scale. Every opponent opposes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and many of them are 2020 election deniers. These are the races that we believe will most advance climate action and reproductive choice." said Karyn Strickler, President of Vote Climate U.S. PAC.
In Pennsylvania, John Fetterman's (D) Climate Calculation is 92.5. He understands the importance of action on climate change as a top priority issue. On his official campaign website, Fetterman states, "I believe that climate change is an existential threat, and we need to transition to clean energy as quickly as possible."
In our 2020 Vote Climate U.S. PAC analysis of the partisan divide on Climate Calculations, with U.S. Senate challengers, the Republican mean was 17.7, the Democratic mean was 90.7, with a +73 difference for the Democrats. The partisan divide was worse for incumbents. And that was an improvement from the 2018 party analysis.
Still, Democrats have major room for improvement on the issue. America needs leadership for climate-specific legislation, like a fee on carbon polluters. For example, for a Climate Calculation of 100, candidate John Fetterman would need to take a strong, public position and advocate in favor of a U.S. fee on carbon polluters. His position is unclear. He seems to lean a bit heavily on fossil fuels, saying, "But we must [transition to clean energy] in a way that preserves the union way of life for the thousands of workers currently employed or supported by the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania and the communities where they live." We must get off fossil fuels if we hope to slow climate change. Fetterman supports Roe v. Wade. (See our Voter's Guide Scoring Criteria for Challengers for more information. Both candidates in this race are challengers, so they share the same criteria.)
John Fetterman's (D) Climate Calculation of 92.5 compares to his opponent Mehmet Oz (R) whose overall Climate Calculation is an abysmal 7.5 out of a possible 100. Oz disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-made, from burning fossil fuels. In a Republican forum discussing increasing gas prices, Candidate Oz stated "Actually, we want more than energy independence, we want energy dominance." Candidate Mehmet Oz inaccurately argues that carbon dioxide is not the problem. The singular reason he does not score a zero is because he benefitted from the fact that we could not find public information on his stance on a fee on carbon pollution, giving him a bit higher Climate Calculation than a Climate Zero. He opposes Roe.
In Nevada Catherine Cortez Master (D) has a Climate Calculation of 87.5. In a 2019 press release on climate change innovation, the Senator stated, "We cannot put off solutions to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and we can't ignore the effects of climate change, visible all around us." She consistently votes pro-climate and shows leadership by making climate change a top priority issue. In a 'Medium' blog post the Senator wrote, "...I'm also proud to support the Clean Energy for America Act, which would reduce carbon pollution over the next decade."
As an incumbent U.S. Senator, she received a 100 on her position, 100 on her climate votes, 100 on her leadership, but a 50 on her carbon fee score. She would need to take a strong position, advocating for a fee on carbon polluters for a Climate Calculation of 100. Her position on that issue is unclear. If she clarified that position, she could be Vote Climate U.S. PAC, Climate Hero. She supports Roe. (See Voter's Guide Scoring Criteria for Incumbents for more information.)
Her opponent Adam Paul Laxalt (R) has a Climate Calculation of 28.75 because he does not take a clear position on whether climate change is real and human-made, from burning fossil fuels and he has no known, or an inconsistent position on a U.S. carbon fee. He opposes Roe.
In Georgia, incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock (D) has a Climate Calculation of 81.25. For position, he got a score of 100. For votes, we picked 5 U.S. Senate votes and Senator Warnock received a 100 on votes. But for Vote Climate U.S. PAC, there is more to a Climate Calculation than what they say and how they vote. It's also about what they do, also known as leadership. If incumbents don't make public statements and advocates for action on climate change as a top priority issue, which would earn them a score of 100, but they do still advocate for climate action, they get a 75 on leadership, as Warnock does.
A carbon fee is a fee imposed on fossil fuels intended to dramatically reduce or eliminate the emission of carbon dioxide from those sources. A carbon fee would aid in the switch from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy and slow climate change and is a policy which Vote Climate U.S. PAC considers the singular, most effective.
For a Climate Calculation of 100, U.S. Senator Raphael Warnock, like many other of our priority candidates, would need to take a strong, public position and advocate in favor of a U.S. fee on carbon polluters. His position is unclear. Senator, your constituents and your country deserve to know where you stand on this issue. As of now we don't know, so Senator Warnock got a 50 which means he has no known or inconsistent position on a U.S. carbon fee. Plus, we need stronger leadership on the issue of climate change.
Warnock's opponent, Herschel Walker (R) has a ridiculously low Climate Calculation of 7.5 because despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, he disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-made, from burning fossil fuels. He has no known, or an inconsistent position on a U.S. carbon fee. He is a 2020 election denier. He not only opposes Roe, but he has been accused of paying for several abortions for his former girlfriends. Right-wingers don't care because he is a vote for them, regardless of his hypocrisy. Let's hope that swing voters care and progressives turn out on Election Day, Tuesday, November 8th.
Our priority candidate in Arizona, Senator Mark Kelly (D) has a Climate Calculation of 82.5. He understands the importance of climate action as a top priority issue. On his campaign website, it states "Mark has seen the planet change from space, and wanting to stop that and protect our state and our planet is part of what inspired him to run. Mark knows that if we harness the power of American ingenuity and determination, we can mitigate the risks of climate change." Senator Mark Kelly has demonstrated leadership by advocating for climate action. In a 2019 Facebook post, Senator Kelly told, "Congress that we need immediate action on climate action." In an October 2021 interview with White Mountain Independent it said, "Regarding energy and climate change, Senator Kelly recognizes the role that traditional fossil fuels play in the production of electricity and the creation of jobs in Arizona. He also sees Arizona's drought and wildfire conditions being made worse by the effects of climate change." We do not know his position on a fee on carbon polluters. He supports Roe. His opponent, Blake Masters (R), has a Climate Calculation of 7.5. He opposes Roe.
In Wisconsin, priority candidate Mandela Barnes (D) Climate Calculation is 92.5. She understands the importance of action on climate change as a top priority issue. On a video on his official campaign website, Candidate Barnes states, "Climate change is already taking a toll on our communities, from our cities to our family farms. We've got once in a generation storms coming every year now. We need bold, powerful action to address climate change that breathes new life into the manufacturing industry." We don't know her position on a fee on carbon. She supports Roe.
Her opponent, Senator Ron Johnson (R) has a Climate Calculation of 6.25. He demonstrates a lack of leadership with public statements, advocacy or votes against climate action. According to a 2016 article by 'Huff Post, Senator Johnson stated, "'Mankind has actually flourished in warmer temperatures... just think the question always is what is the cost versus the benefit of anything we do to try and clean up our environment... I'm highly concerned about the climate alarmists that are going to spend a lot of money and have no impact whatsoever on the climate but have a great deal of harm on our economy." He opposes Roe.
Vote Climate U.S. PAC
2022 Priority Candidates
MUST HOLD
NET GAIN
U.S. Senate Races
Vote Climate U.S. PAC works to elect candidates to get off fossil fuels, transition to clean, renewable, energy and reduce carbon pollution by putting a fee on carbon, in order to slow climate change and related weather extremes.
"This disgraceful vote does not change Congress' legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war," said an ACLU director.
As US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared Thursday that "the amount of firepower over Iran and over Tehran is about to surge dramatically," four Democrats in the House of Representatives voted with nearly all Republicans to reject a bipartisan war powers resolution that would have halted President Donald Trump and Israel's assault on the Middle East country.
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Greg Landsman (Ohio), and Juan Vargas (Calif.) stood with the GOP for the 212-219 vote against H.Con.Res.38, which was led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). The only other Republican to support the resolution was Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio)—though GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales (Texas), who is facing an unrelated scandal, did not participate.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the think tank Center for International Policy, highlighted that given Massie and Davidson's votes, "if those four Democrats had stuck with their caucus and their voters, it would have passed."
"Everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
The House vote came just a day after Democratic US Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) and all of the chamber's Republicans but Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) rejected S.J.Res.104, a similar resolution sponsored by Paul and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). As with the Wednesday vote, a range of critics called out Congress for enabling Trump's illegal and already seemingly endless war.
"This is a shameful abdication of Congress' constitutional authority to take the country to war," said Defending Rights & Dissent, noting the rising death toll. "US and Israeli strikes have hit elementary schools, hospitals, and the capital city of Tehran, home to 10 million. Six US service members have died. Trump is carrying out yet another regime change war of choice, and the American people have been overwhelmingly clear that they don't support it."
"This was Congress' best chance to stop further killings, to stop an all-out regional war with no end in sight, and to uphold the constitutional principle that prevents presidents from going rogue," the group continued. "We are deeply disappointed in both chambers' failure to stand up to this dangerous insanity."
Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's democracy and technology division, stressed in a statement that "this failed war powers vote is nothing short of cowardly, but Congress can't dodge the Constitution forever."
"By refusing to rein in President Trump's unauthorized war with Iran, Congress has allowed President Trump to make a mockery of the Constitution and is trying to duck responsibility for putting service members and civilians in great danger," Anders added. "But, this disgraceful vote does not change Congress' legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war. We will hold President Trump accountable for this abuse of power."
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, one unnamed "senior progressive House Democrat" told Axios that the groups including Justice Democrats, MoveOn, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Our Revolution "will primary anyone" who votes no.
After the vote, Justice Democrats shared the congressional office numbers of the four Democrats, and said to "call these spineless Dems who support Trump's new forever war with Iran and tell them to go to war themselves if they want it so bad."
Another progressive group, a youth-led climate organization Sunrise Movement, also took aim at the House Democrats who voted with the GOP, declaring on social media: "Absolutely ridiculous. Call them out. Vote them out."
Council on American-Islamic Relations government affairs director Robert S. McCaw commended all lawmakers "who voted to uphold Congress' constitutional duty and demand an end to unauthorized hostilities with Iran," particularly Massie and Davidson for their "courage to break with their party and stand on principle."
It is also "deeply disappointing" that some Democrats "joined Republicans to defeat this effort and enable an unconstitutional war," he said, warning that "their votes helped give the administration a green light to continue a dangerous escalation that threatens American lives and regional stability."
Earlier this week, Cuellar, Golden, and Landsman joined Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.) to introduce a competing war powers resolution that would let Trump wage war on Iran for a month. Noting that proposal, McCaw argued that "Americans did not elect Congress to issue a '30 days of carnage hall pass' for an unauthorized war. If a war is unconstitutional today, it should not be allowed to continue for another month."
“The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the president, has the authority to decide when this nation goes to war," he added. "The American people must continue pressing their elected representatives to reclaim that authority and stop another disastrous war in the Middle East before it spirals further out of control."
As of Thursday, the Iranian government put the death toll at 1,230, though US and Israeli attacks continue, and Hegseth said that "we have only just begun to fight and fight decisively... If you think you've seen something, just wait. The amount of combat power that's still flowing, that's still coming, that we'll be able to project over Iran is a multiples of what it currently is right now."
On top of the lives lost, recent reporting suggests that Trump's war on Iran could be costing US taxpayers $1 billion per day. Calling the House vote "profoundly disappointing," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said that "everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
"Congress needs to stop listening to warmongering elites," Kharrazian added, "and start listening to the American people who are sick and tired of being dragged into forever wars."
"Israel built AI targeting systems in Gaza—approved kills in 20 seconds, 10% error rate accepted," said one expert. "Now those same systems are running over Iran... and there’s an arms industry IPO-ing off the back of it."
After Israel's unprecedented use of artificial intelligence to select bombing targets in Gaza, experts are now sounding the alarm regarding what one analyst on Thursday called a lack of human supervision over Israeli AI targeting in Iran.
"Similarities between Israel's bombing of Gaza and Tehran are growing stronger," Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft executive vice president Trita Parsi said Thursday on X. "In both cases, it appears Israel is using AI without any human oversight."
"For instance, Israel has bombed a park in Tehran called 'Police Park,'" Parsi added. "It has nothing to do with the police. But it appears AI identified it as a target since Israel is bombing all government-related buildings. No one in Israel bothered to check and find out that it is just a park."
Borrowing from startup vernacular, tech journalist Jacob Ward calls Israel's use and export of AI technology in the post-Gaza era "lethal beta."
"Gaza was the prototype," Ward explained in a video posted this week on Bluesky. "Iran is the launch."
"[It's] a live-fire, live-ordnance lab experiment on people, killing people, that creates a pipeline of exportable products to the rest of the world, and it has become a big industry in Israel—and it's something that we in the United States have been dealing with and doing business with for some time as well."
Israel built AI targeting systems in Gaza — approved kills in 20 seconds, 10% error rate accepted. Now those same systems are running over Iran and being exported all over the world. I’m calling this “lethal beta,” and there’s an arms industry IPO-ing off the back of it. Full breakdown at
[image or embed]
— Jacob Ward (@byjacobward.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 4:45 PM
Previous investigations have detailed how the IDF uses Habsora, an Israeli AI system that can automatically select airstrike targets at an exponentially faster rate than ever before. One Israeli intelligence source asserted that the technology has transformed the IDF into a “mass assassination factory” in which the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.
Mistakes were all but inevitable, but expert critics argue Israeli policy has made matters worse. In the tense hours following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, mid-ranking IDF officers were empowered to order attacks on not only senior Hamas commanders but any fighter in the resistance group, no matter how low-ranking.
According to a New York Times investigation, IDF officers were also permitted to risk up to 20 civilian lives in each airstrike, and up to 500 noncombatant lives per day. Even that limit was lifted after just a few days. Officers could order any number of strikes as they believed were legal, with no limits on civilian harm.
Senior IDF commanders sometimes approved strikes they knew could kill more than 100 civilians if the target was considered high-value. In one AI-aided airstrike targeting one senior Hamas commander, the IDF dropped multiple US-supplied 2,000-pound bombs, which can level an entire city block, on the Jabalia refugee camp in October 2023.
That bombing killed at least 126 people, 68 of them children, and wounded 280 others. Hamas said four Israeli and three international hostages were also killed in the attack.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the US military in Iran has "leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare, a tool that could be difficult for the Pentagon to give up even as it severs ties with the company that created it."
According to the Post, Palantir's Maven Smart System—which contains Anthropic's Claude AI language model—reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets during the war's first 24 hours alone.
Experts are urging a more cautious approach to military AI use. Paul Scharre, executive vice president at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post that “AI gets it wrong... We need humans to check the output of generative AI when the stakes are life and death.”
It is not publicly known whether AI was used in connection with any of the deadliest massacres of the current war on Iran, which has left more than 1,000 Iranians dead, including around 175 children and others who were killed by what first responders and victims' relatives said was a double-tap strike on a girls' school last Saturday in the southern city of Minab.
Last week, Trump ordered all federal agencies including the Department of Defense to stop using all Anthropic products in apparent retaliation for the San Francisco-based company's refusal to allow unrestricted government and military use of its technology over fears it could be used for mass surveillance of Americans and in automated weapons systems, also known as "killer robots."
Trump gave the Pentagon six months to phase out Anthropic products, allowing their continued use in the Iran war pending replacements.
Project Nimbus—a $1.2 billion cloud-computing and AI contract signed in 2021 between the Israeli government and Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud—provides cloud infrastructure, AI tools, and data storage for the IDF and other agencies. The deal prohibits Google or Amazon from refusing service to Israeli government, military, or intelligence agencies.
Academics and jurists are gathered this week in Geneva, Switzerland—with a second four-day round of talks starting August 31—for a United Nations-sponsored conference on lethal autonomous weapons systems.
Attendees are examining the risks posed by killer robots that can select and engage targets without meaningful human control. They are also studying the legal, military, and technological implications of autonomous weapons systems and working to build international consensus on regulation.
“The current failure to regulate AI warfare, or to pause its usage until there is some agreement on lawful usage, seems to suggest potential proliferation of AI warfare is imminent,” Craig Jones, a political geographer at Newcastle University in England who researches military targeting, told Nature's Nicola Jones on Thursday.
While some proponents of AI weapons systems have claimed their use will reduce civilian harm, Jones stressed that "there is no evidence that AI lowers civilian deaths or wrongful targeting decisions—and it may be that the opposite is true."
"If the United States is at war, then Pete Hegseth is a war criminal. If the United States is not at war, then Pete Hegseth is a murderer."
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday was condemned for his boasts on Wednesday about sinking an Iranian military ship after allegations emerged that it was "defenseless" at the time it was torpedoed in international waters by a US submarine.
Military.com reported Thursday that the Iranian ship had been departing from a biennial multinational naval training exercise that it had been invited to participate in by the Indian government.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has so far remained silent on the US attack on the ship, but other politicians in India delivering sharp condemnations.
According to the Times of India, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi tore into Modi for not speaking up after the US torpedoed a boat that his government had invited into its waters.
"The conflict has reached our backyard, with an Iranian warship sunk in the Indian Ocean," Gandhi said. "Yet the PM has said nothing. At a moment like this, we need a steady hand at the wheel. Instead, India has a compromised PM who has surrendered our strategic autonomy."
In a social media post, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said there was no way that the Iranian ship could have been perceived as any kind of military threat.
"I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition," he wrote. "It was defenseless... The attack by the US submarine was premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship's presence in the exercise to which the US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute, presumably with this operation in mind."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim noted that, in addition to striking what appears to have been a defenseless boat, the US also didn't help rescue any of the shipwrecked men who were aboard the vessel.
"The Sri Lanka Navy was left to pull the dead bodies from the water," Grim commented. "I am hard pressed to think of any other nation throughout history that would do something so cowardly and despicable. We are genuinely in a league of our own, and American media—mostly shrugging off the bombing of a girls school and acting as if carpet bombing Tehran is a normal military tactic—is deeply complicit."
Author Bruno Maçães also pointed to the decision to leave the shipwrecked crew at sea as an act of historic depravity.
"Really quite extraordinary that the US bombed an Iranian ship and then left the surviving sailors to drown," Maçães wrote. "There are many many accounts of the Nazis or Imperial Japan saving survivors at sea. I see we have now dropped below that level."
Mohamad Safa, executive director of PVA Patriotic Vision, an international multilateral organization with special consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council, said that the US attack on the Iranian ship constituted either a war crime or straight-up murder.
"What Pete Hegseth ordered the military to do violates international law," he wrote. "The Iranian ship was near Sri Lanka, in international waters outside the combat zone and on a training exercise. Under the Geneva Conventions, you are obligated to rescue the crew of a ship that you sink during war. Abandoned any survivors and leaving them to drown is illegal and a war crime."