

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.

Making the oil and gas industry pay for climate impacts is ranked as the favoured policy choice, according to a survey conducted in eight countries across five continents by strategic insight agency, Opinium.[1] The study, commissioned by Greenpeace International, is published as the organisation steps up its global actions to defeat Big Oil’s attempt to silence opposition in courtrooms from London, to Paris, Rome, and North Dakota.
Abdoulaye Diallo, Co-Head of Greenpeace International’s Stop Drilling Start Paying campaign, which commissioned the survey, said: “This research shows how taxing the wealthy polluters in chief – companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, Total, Equinor and Eni – has become a mainstream solution among people, cutting across borders and income levels. As governments debate how to finance climate action, they can be confident that making polluters pay is not only fair, but also far more popular and effective than placing the burden on ordinary citizens for a crisis for which they bear little or no responsibility.”
Key insights from the report include:
Consensus on Big Oil’s role in climate change
Indignation about Big Oil
The survey also finds a majority in the surveyed countries is angry about:
Global concern about the climate crisis: a Global North/South divide
The survey reveals 80% of respondents are worried about climate change. A large majority of people are worried that it would harm them personally and an even greater majority of people worry it would harm future generations.
At the same time, the survey also reveals wide gaps between Global North and Global South countries regarding the exposure to the climate crisis. People surveyed in the Global North are twice as likely to have no personal experience with extreme weather events than those in the Global South (43%, 19% respectively).
This finding is in line with data on the high vulnerability to climate change of some of the countries which have done the least to cause it.[2][3]
Imposing a fair climate damages tax on extraction of fossil fuels by OECD countries – proposed by the charity Stamp Out Poverty and supported by 100 NGOs, including Greenpeace International – is one example of a tax on big polluters. This could generate USD 900 billion by 2030, based on a low initial rate of USD 5, rising USD5 each year thereafter. This would be key for annual climate-related loss and damage costs, estimated to be between USD 290-580 billion by 2030 in low-income countries, as well as for reducing the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and adapting to the impacts of the climate crisis in all countries.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has previously confirmed that more than a century of burning fossil fuels has been a key driver of global warming of 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels.[4]
The survey’s results demonstrate public support and sentiment across countries for the “Make Polluters Pay” policy principle, in line with other public opinion studies published this year, such as the Earth for All 2024 Survey.[5]
Greenpeace International commissioned this study for the Stop Drilling Start Paying global campaign, which is working with millions of people to stop oil and gas companies from expanding, resist their intimidation, and force them to pay for the climate damages already felt by people across the world.
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000Despite denials of being involved in the Texas state senate special election, Trump endorsed the losing candidate on three separate occasions over the last three days.
Hours after the Republican Party suffered an upset defeat in a special election in a deep-red district in Texas, President Donald Trump falsely claimed he had nothing to do with the race.
While speaking to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Sunday, Trump was asked what he made of the GOP losing a Texas state senate election in a district that he carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
"I'm not involved in that, that's a local Texas race," Trump replied.
Reporter: A Democrat won a special election in Texas in an area that you won by 17 points
Trump: I’m not involved in that. That’s a local race. I don’t know anything about it. I had nothing to do with it. pic.twitter.com/MfWU1DZkar
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 1, 2026
In fact, Trump endorsed losing Republican candidate Leigh Wambsganss on three separate occasions in just the last three days, including a Saturday post on Truth Social where he called her "a phenomenal Candidate" and "an incredible supporter of our Movement to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN."
Trump's attempt to distance himself from someone whom he enthusiastically endorsed just one day ago elicited instant ridicule from many of his critics on social media.
"Two days ago, the president used his social media platform to endorse this 'phenomenal candidate' and to urge 'all America First Patriots' in the district to get out and vote for her," remarked Princeton historian Kevin Kruse. "Today, he says he doesn't know anything about it and had nothing to do with it. He's lying or demented or both."
Zak Williams, a political consultant at Zenith Strategies and a native Texan, wrote that Trump was "intimately involved" in the campaign, noting that Republicans outspent Democrats in the race by a margin of 10 to 1.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who left the GOP over his disgust with Trump, expressed astonishment at the president's blatant dishonesty.
"He’s such a horrible person," wrote Walsh. "And such a dishonest person. Yes, he was involved in that race. He endorsed the losing candidate, and she lost 100% because of him. She lost 100% because of this past year of his chaos, his cruelty, and his incompetence. Her loss was a total rejection of him."
Journalist James Barragán of TX Capital Tonight, argued that the Wambsganss loss calls into question just how effective Trump's endorsements will be in moving voters in the 2026 midterm elections.
"President Trump says he’s 'not involved' in SD 9 race where his endorsed candidate (who he boosted multiple times in the runup) lost a +17 Trump district," wrote Barragán. "He’s either not being truthful or it makes you question how much stock people should put into his social media endorsements."
"This was a bribe," said one critic.
A bombshell Saturday report from the Wall Street Journal revealed that a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family secretly backed a massive $500 million investment into the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture months before the Trump administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to highly sensitive artificial intelligence chip technology.
According to the Journal's sources, lieutenants of Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan signed a deal in early 2025 to buy a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial, the startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Documents reviewed by the Journal showed that the buyers in the deal agreed to "pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities," while "at least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with" the Witkoff family.
Weeks after green lighting the investment into the Trump crypto venture, Tahnoon met directly with President Donald Trump and Witkoff in the White House, where he reportedly expressed interest in working with the US on AI-related technology.
Two months after this, the Journal noted, "the administration committed to give the tiny Gulf monarchy access to around 500,000 of the most advanced AI chips a year—enough to build one of the world’s biggest AI data center clusters."
Tahnoon in the past had tried to get US officials to give the UAE access to the chips, but was rebuffed on concerns that the cutting-edge technology could be passed along to top US geopolitical rival China, wrote the Journal.
Many observers expressed shock at the Journal's report, with some critics saying that it showed Trump and his associates were engaging in a criminal bribery scheme.
"This was a bribe," wrote Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, in a social media post. "UAE royals gave the Trump family $500 million, and Trump, in his presidential capacity, gave them access to tightly guarded American AI chips. The most powerful person on the planet, also happens to be the most shamelessly corrupt."
Jesse Eisinger, reporter and editor at ProPublica, argued that the Abu Dhabi investment into the Trump cypto firm "should rank among the greatest US scandals ever."
Democratic strategist David Axelrod also said that the scope of the Trump crypto investment scandal was historic in nature.
"In any other time or presidency, this story... would be an earthquake of a scandal," he wrote. "The size, scope and implications of it are unprecedented and mind-boggling."
Tommy Vietor, co-host of "Pod Save America," struggled to wrap his head around the scale of corruption on display.
"How do you add up the cost of corruption this massive?" he wondered. "It's not just that Trump is selling advanced AI tech to the highest bidder, national security be damned. Its that he's tapped that doofus Steve Witkoff as an international emissary so his son Zach Witkoff can mop up bribes."
Former Rep. Tom Malinkowski (D-NJ) warned the Trump and his associates that they could wind up paying a severe price for their deal with the UAE.
"If a future administration finds that such payments to the Trump family were acts of corruption," he wrote, "these people could be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, and the assets in the US could potentially be frozen."
In a speech before cheering supporters, Democrat Taylor Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people."
Democrats scored a major upset on Saturday, as machinist union leader Taylor Rehmet easily defeated Republican opponent Leigh Wambsganss in a state senate special election held in a deep-red district that President Donald Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
With nearly all votes counted, Rehmet holds a 14-point lead in Texas' Senate District 9, which covers a large portion of Tarrant County.
In a speech before cheering supporters, Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people" whom he credited with putting his campaign over the top.
This win goes to everyday, working people.
I’ll see you out there! pic.twitter.com/kPWzjn2LhW
— Taylor Rehmet (@TaylorRehmetTX) February 1, 2026
Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.
“The dynamics of a special election are fundamentally different from a November general election,” Wambsganss said. “I believe the voters of Senate District 9 and Tarrant County Republicans will answer the call in November.”
Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reacted somberly to the news of Rehmet's victory, warning in a social media post that the result was "a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas."
"Our voters cannot take anything for granted," Patrick emphasized.
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico, on the other hand, cheered Rehmet's victory, which he hinted was a sign of things to come in the Lone Star State in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Trump won this district by 17 points," he wrote. "Democrat Taylor Rehmet just flipped it—despite Big Money outspending him 10:1. Something is happening in Texas."
Steven Monacelli, special correspondent for the Texas Observer, described Rehmet's victory as "an earthquake of Biblical proportions."
"Tarrant County is the largest red county in the nation," Monacelli explained. "I cannot emphasize enough how big this is."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of polling firm Zenith Research, noted that Rehmet's victory was truly remarkable given the district's past voting record.
"The recent high water mark for Dems in the district was 43.6% (Beto 2018)," he wrote, referring to Democrat Beto O'Rourke's failed 2018 US Senate campaign. "Rehmet’s likely to exceed 55%. The heavily Latino parts of the district shifted sharply to the left from 2024."
Polling analyst Lakshya Jain said that the big upset in Texas makes more sense when considering recent polling data on voter enthusiasm.
"Our last poll's generic ballot was D+4," he explained. "Among the most enthusiastic voters (a.k.a., those who said they would 'definitely' vote in 2026)? D+12. Foreseeable and horrible for the GOP."
Bud Kennedy, a columnist for the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, argued that Rehmet's victory shows that "Democrats can win almost anywhere in Texas" in 2026.
Kennedy also credited Rehmet with having "the perfect résumé for a District 9 Democrat" as "a Lockheed Martin leader running against a Republican who had lost suburban public school voters, particularly in staunch-red Republican north Fort Worth."