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.
"We must end any form of political violence—and reject those who try to exploit it," one Democratic congresswoman asserted.
Senior Trump administration officials on Monday made fresh threats to crack down on a nonexistent left-wing "domestic terror movement" following last week's assassination of Charlie Kirk—a move that critics called an attempt to exploit the far-right firebrand's murder to advance an authoritarian agenda targeting nonviolent opposition.
Even as investigators work to determine the motive of Kirk's killer, members of Trump's inner circle and supporters have amplified an unfounded narrative of a coordinated leftist movement targeting conservatives.
According to The New York Times:
On Monday, two senior administration officials, who spoke anonymously to describe the internal planning, said that Cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. The goal, they said, was to categorize left-wing activity that led to violence as domestic terrorism, an escalation that critics said could lay the groundwork for crushing anti-conservative dissent more broadly.
Appearing on the latest episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show" podcast—which was guest hosted by US Vice President JD Vance—White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said that "we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people."
"It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name," Miller vowed.
Vance said during the podcast that he wanted to explore “all of the ways that we’re trying to figure out how to prevent this festering violence that you see on the far left from becoming even more and more mainstream."
“You have the crazies on the far left who are saying, ‘Oh, Stephen Miller and JD Vance, they’re going to go after constitutionally protected speech,'” the vice president said. “We’re going to go after the network that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence."
Vance, who like Trump and numerous supporters claim to champion free speech, also took aim at "people who are celebrating" Kirk's killing.
Another unnamed administration official told the Times Monday that government agencies would be investigating people, including those accused of vandalizing Tesla electric vehicles and dealerships and allegedly assaulting federal immigration agents, in an effort to implicate US leftists in political violence.
Vance and Miller's threats ignored right-wing violence—which statistically outpaces left-wing attacks—including the recent assassinations of Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, who were murdered in June by a right-wing masked gunman disguised as a police officer.
Investigative reporter Jason Paladino reported last week that the US Department of Justice apparently removed an academic study previously published on the National Institute for Justice's online library showing that "since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives" versus "42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives" committed by "far-left extremists."
“Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism.”The Trump DOJ scrubbed this study from their website.
[image or embed]
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan.bsky.social) September 12, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Responding to Miller's remarks, New Republic staff writer Greg Sargent noted on social media that "Stephen Miller was directly involved in one of the largest acts of organized domestic political violence the United States has seen in modern times, the January 6 [2021] insurrection."
Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) weighed in Monday on Miller's attempt to exploit Kirk's murder, writing on the social media site Bluesky that "it's never acceptable to kill someone for their political beliefs. But the Trump [administration] exploiting the shooting of Charlie Kirk to follow their authoritarian instincts and crack down on the left is incredibly disturbing."
"We must end any form of political violence—and reject those who try to exploit it," she added.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom noted Monday on social media that Miller "has already publicly labeled the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization."
"This isn’t about crime and safety," Newsom added. "It’s about dismantling our democratic institutions. We cannot allow acts of political violence to be weaponized and used to threaten tens of millions of Americans."
The progressive Working Families Party (WFP) said Monday on social media that "JD Vance and Stephen Miller want to use the horrifying murder of Charlie Kirk to target and dismantle pro-democracy groups."
"Their comments call to mind some of the darkest periods in US history," WFP continued. "They're dividing people based on what box we ticked on our voter registration."
Vance and Miller "want to stoke fear and resentment to justify their un-American crackdowns on free speech, mass abductions of working people, and military takeovers of our cities," WFP added. "This isn't going to fly. We’ve survived crises like this before as a country, and we can choose to live in a place where our political freedoms are protected, where we settle disagreements with words not weapons, and where no one has to fear losing a loved one to gun violence."
"There is no legal justification for this military strike," said one Amnesty International campaigner. "The US must be held accountable."
President Donald Trump said Monday that the US carried out a fresh strike on what he said was a boat used by Venezuelan drug gangs, killing three people in what one human rights campaigner called another "extrajudicial execution."
"This morning, on my Orders, US Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the [US Southern Command] area of responsibility," Trump said on his Truth Social network. "The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the US."
"These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to US National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital US Interests," the Republican president continued. "The Strike resulted in three male terrorists killed in action. No US Forces were harmed in this Strike."
"BE WARNED—IF YOU ARE TRANSPORTING DRUGS THAT CAN KILL AMERICANS, WE ARE HUNTING YOU!" Trump added. "The illicit activities by these cartels have wrought DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES, killing millions of American Citizens. NO LONGER. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!"
US President Trump just announced that a second drug smuggling boat from Venezuela was hit by a US airstrike in the Caribbean, killing 3 people on board the boat.#Venezuela pic.twitter.com/dO34gYr9GZ
— CNW (@ConflictsW) September 15, 2025
Responding to arguments by legal experts and Venezuelan officials that the September 2 strike was illegal, Trump said Sunday that "what's illegal are the drugs that were on the boat... and the fact that 300 million people died last year from drugs."
Only 62 million people died in the entire world of all causes last year, making Trump's claim impossibly false.
Monday's attack followed the September 2 bombing of a vessel allegedly transporting cocaine off the Venezuelan coast, a strike that killed 11 people. Venezuelan officials say none of the 11 men were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, as claimed by Trump.
On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Last month, the president reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat drug cartels abroad, sparking fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US attacks, invasions, occupations, and other interventions since the issuance of the dubious Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
The Intercept's Nick Turse reported Monday that the Trump administration's recently rebranded Department of War "is thwarting congressional oversight" of the September 2 attack.
“I’m incredibly disturbed by this new reporting that the Trump administration launched multiple strikes on the boat off Venezuela,” Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) said in response to Turse's reporting. “They didn’t even bother to seek congressional authorization, bragged about these killings—and teased more to come.”
Common Dreams reported last week that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a war powers resolution seeking to restrain Trump from conducting attacks in the Caribbean.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led a letter signed by two dozen Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asserting that the Trump administration offered "no legitimate justification" for the first boat strike.
It's not just congressional Democrats who have decried Trump's September 2 attack. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that "the recent drone attack on a small speedboat over 2,000 miles from our shore without identification of the occupants or the content of the boat is in no way part of a declared war, and defies our longstanding Coast Guard rules of engagement."
“What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Paul later added.
Paul also mirrored Democratic lawmakers' questioning of Trump's narrative that the boat bombed on September 2 was heading to the United States.
Echoing congressional critics, Daphne Eviatar, director of Amnesty International's Security With Human Rights program, said of Monday's attack, "Today, President Trump claimed his administration carried out another lethal strike against a boat in the Caribbean."
"This is an extrajudicial execution, which is murder," Eviatar added. "There is no legal justification for this military strike. The US must be held accountable."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said one rights advocate.
Human rights leaders on Monday called on the 112 countries that are party to a treaty banning cluster munitions to reinforce the ban and demand that other governments sign on to the agreement, as they released an annual report showing that the bombs only serve to cause civilian suffering—sometimes long after conflicts have ended.
The governance board of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) released the 16th annual Cluster Munition Monitor on Monday, compiling data on the impact of cluster munitions for 2024 and revealing that all reported cluster bomb casualties last year were civilians—and close to half, 42%, were children.
Cluster bombs are particularly dangerous to civilians because after being dropped from aircraft or fired by rockets or other weapon, they open in the air and send multiple submunitions over wide areas—often leaving unexploded bomblets that are sometimes mistaken by children for harmless toys, and can kill and injure people in populated areas for years or even decades after the initial bombing.
The report, which was released as officials prepare to convene in Geneva for the Cluster Munitions Conference, says at least 314 global casualties from cluster munitions were recorded in 202, with 193 civilians killed in attacks in Ukraine—plus 15 who were killed by unexploded munitions.
Since the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted in 2008, none of the 112 signatories have used cluster bombs—but countries that are not party to the convention, including Russia and Ukraine, used the munitions throughout 2024 and into this year, and the US has said it transferred cluster bombs to Ukraine at least seven times between July 2023-October 2024.
The report details recent uses of cluster bombs, the impact of which may not be known for years as civilians remain at risk from the unexploded bombs, including by Thailand—by its own apparent admission—in its border conflict with Cambodia and allegedly by Iran, which Israel claimed used cluster munitions in its attack in June. Cluster munitions have also reportedly been used in recent years in Myanmar—including at schools—and Syria.
"Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
This year, the withdrawal of Lithuania from the Convention on Cluster Munitions—an unprecedented step—garnered condemnation from at least 47 countries. While it had never previously used or stockpiled cluster bombs, the country said it was necessary to have the option of using the munitions "to face increased regional security threats."
The casualties that continued throughout 2024 and into 2025 "demonstrate the need to clear more contaminated land and to provide more assistance to victims," said Human Rights Watch, a co-founder of CMC.
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions has over many years made significant progress in reducing the human suffering caused by cluster munitions," said Mark Hiznay, associate crisis, conflict, and arms director for HRW. "Governments should now act to reinforce the stigma against these indiscriminate weapons and condemn their continued use."
The report notes that funding cuts by donor states including the US, which under the second term of President Donald Trump has cut funding for landmine and cluster bomb clearance and aid, have left many affected countries struggling to provide services to survivors.
Children, the report notes, are often particularly in need of aid after suffering the effects of cluster munitions, as they are "more vulnerable to injury and frequently require repeated surgeries, regular prosthetic replacements as they grow, and long-term opportunities to access physical rehabilitation and psychological support."
"Without adequate care for children, complications can worsen, affecting their schooling, social interactions, mental health, and overall well-being," explained IBCL and CMC.
At the Cluster Munitions Conference taking place from September 16-19, said Anne Héry, advocacy director for the group Humanity and Inclusion, states must "reaffirm their commitment to this vital treaty."
"Cluster munitions are banned for a reason: Civilians, including children, account for the vast majority of casualties," said Héry. "Questioning the convention is unacceptable. States convening at the annual Cluster Munition Conference must reaffirm their strong attachment to the treaty and their condemnation of any use by any party."