

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.
We and a growing number of lawmakers are proposing legislation to ensure that the companies that helped drive the climate crisis help pay their fair share of the ensuing damage.
It's not just your rising bills for groceries and healthcare. For many Americans, the affordability crisis is now showing up in skyrocketing costs to keep their homes insured, as communities are battered by worsening weather disasters fueled by climate change.
Our states and our constituents are feeling this directly. Hawai’i is picking up the pieces after several weeks of historic flooding, which caused more than $1 billion in damage and led to widespread evacuations. These costs are sure to increase home insurance rates that have already spiked by as much as 50% since August 2023, when out of control wildfires—worsened by climate change-driven drought conditions—devastated Maui.
In California, communities are still trying to recover from wildfires that tore through Los Angeles in January 2025. These fires stand as the most expensive wildfires in world history—causing more than $65 billion in damage, much of which is being passed onto the public through rising insurance premiums.
Although New York’s insurance market is not yet seeing the levels of climate-driven distress seen in other parts of the country, the average homeowner is paying $1,000 more for coverage in the years since Hurricane Ida—supercharged by warming oceans—caused over $9 billion in flooding damage. And the frequency of highly destructive storms is growing fast.
If a power company is responsible for the spark that ignites a fire, why not the fossil fuel giants that are turning much of the country into a tinderbox?
The average American homeowner isn’t responsible for this climate chaos; why are they the ones picking up the tab for the billions of dollars of damage it leaves in its wake? We and a growing number of lawmakers are proposing a better model: ensuring that the companies that helped drive this crisis help pay their fair share of the ensuing damage.
Large multinational oil and gas giants knew as far back as the 1970s that their dirty fossil fuel products would make weather disasters more destructive, but spent the ensuing decades lying to the public about their contribution to the problem. The real world harms of their deception is becoming increasingly clear, but they’re paying nearly none of the financial consequences.
That’s why we’re working to build a fairer system in our states—one that could be a model for the rest of the country. One that protects people from perpetually rising home insurance premiums by holding Big Oil accountable for their contribution to weather disasters that are a core driver of the affordability crisis in this country.
Our legislation would empower state attorneys general to bring civil actions against the largest oil and gas companies after major climate-driven disasters. Revenue recovered through legal action would be used to reimburse people dealing with higher rates, stabilize “insurer of last resort” programs, and reimburse homeowners facing rising premiums. At a time when housing affordability is already under strain, the growing instability in home insurance markets is making it even harder for families to buy, keep, and protect their homes.
The stakes couldn’t be higher—for individuals, not to mention the broader American housing market. Uninsurable properties are often unsellable properties, as mortgage lenders generally require that home buyers secure insurance.
Last year, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the US Senate Banking Committee that in “10 or 15 years there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage” due to climate change. That ominous prediction seems overly conservative given that realtors in California and Colorado are already reporting pending home sales falling through due to climate risk.
Even as extreme weather becomes more common, more and more Americans are risking financial ruin and going without a safety net altogether. A recent poll in California found that a shocking 1 in 5 California homeowners don’t have insurance, with rising costs the most often cited reason.
Holding polluters accountable for their contribution to a weather disaster isn’t a radical idea. Insurance companies already routinely take utilities to court—and win large settlements—when unmaintained power lines ignite wildfires. If a power company is responsible for the spark that ignites a fire, why not the fossil fuel giants that are turning much of the country into a tinderbox?
The status quo of worsening disasters, perpetual insurance premium increases, and more uninsured families is clearly untenable. But it’s likely to persist until Big Oil companies pay their fair share for the weather chaos they knowingly brought about. It’s time for the fossil fuel giants driving the home insurance crisis to shoulder the growing financial burden, not everyday Americans.
The project jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks.
In its 2024 fourth quarter update, NextDecade, a Houston-based liquefied natural gas company, announced its intention to more than double its export capacity at the Rio Grande LNG facility near Brownsville, Texas. Despite NextDecade’s sunny projections, community members and investors in the project’s owner, Global Infrastructure Partners, and its parent company, BlackRock, should be wary of risks associated with the LNG facility. The proposed expansion could further harm local communities, the region, and pose significant risks to investors.
LNG is primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the atmospheric warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As originally proposed, this project was estimated to emit the equivalent emissions of 44 coal power plants every year, about 163 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The newly announced expansion would be projected to emit over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year, or the equivalent of the emissions from 83 coal plants annually.
Perhaps in an effort to address criticism about emissions, NextDecade’s original proposal included carbon capture and storage (CCS), though some opponents described this as greenwashing from the beginning. The company withdrew its CCS application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2024, yet continues to tout sustainability on its website.
The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
The Rio Grande LNG facility sits in a region already burdened by economic hardship and environmental injustice. Its expansion will amplify air pollution, exposing local residents—many of whom are Latino and low-income—to increased risks of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other serious health conditions.
Several nearby towns and entities formally oppose the project, including Laguna Vista, South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and the Laguna Madre Water District. The Rio Grande LNG terminal is being built on the sacred land of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, yet Rio Grande LNG, regulatory agencies, and banks have failed to consult with that Tribe on its impacts.
Additionally, according to an environmental report,, the facilities will likely significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping, and natural tourism industries, putting communities’ livelihoods at risk. The project also threatens critical wetlands adjacent to the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, which protects endangered species such as the ocelot and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The noise, light, and industrial activity will disrupt fragile ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. The opposition shines a light on the environmental risks inherent in this project.
Rio Grande LNG has faced significant challenges, including pending approval and permitting of the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Some banks and insurance companies have wavered in their support. Long before the expansion announcement, insurance company CHUBB backed out of the project. Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, and La Banque Postale have also pulled financial support from the project in the last several years.
For investors, this means escalating risks: construction delays, legal battles, potentially stranded assets, and the threat of diminished returns. Continuing to pour capital into this project is not just environmentally irresponsible—it is financially imprudent.
The global energy market is also shifting rapidly. Ongoing trade wars and on-and-off-again tariffs could make it difficult for Rio Grande LNG to meet its Final Investment Decision, the last fundraising hurdle a project like this must clear before beginning a new stage of construction. At the same time, LNG demand is projected to peak before 2030, and an oversupply threatens to depress prices. And the methane emissions from LNG production undermine the climate benefits often touted by proponents.
The Rio Grande LNG expansion is a lose-lose proposition. It jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks. The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
Investors in Global Infrastructure Partners and its parent company BlackRock can limit the harms associated with this project. Potential investors with each company should decline to invest in the expansion of the Rio Grande LNG terminal for the sake of local residents, the region’s economy, and returns on investments.
Happy Mother's Day 2025.
A pebble is kicked up from traffic in front of you, and a deep pit in the windshield causes a crack that must be fixed. No worries. You have car insurance, you think. The windshield repair team tells you that you have a $500 deductible and that the new windshield is $525. You are confused and angry about paying for car insurance for years, only to discover it is inadequate when you need it. You opt not to file a claim because that would likely raise your insurance rates yet again. It’s cash out-of-pocket for you.
While waiting for the windshield replacement, you crack a tooth on a mint. No worries. You have dental insurance, you think. The dental office staff tells you that you have a 50% benefit for the tooth repair and that your portion of the dental care is $525. You are confused and angry about paying for dental insurance for years, only to discover it is inadequate when you need it. The dentists never take payments anymore (unless you find a financing company in advance to pay the dentist and bill you over many months). What choice do you really have? The tooth must be fixed. It’s cash out-of-pocket for you.
We don’t like to think we are being bilked out of thousands of dollars by insurance companies, and yet we have almost come to accept it. No matter whether it’s your car windshield or your teeth, it’s all the same. You are only covered to the extent that the insurance company has determined will most effectively maximize their profits and keep you paying that monthly premium year after year. Your safety in your vehicle and/or your health are not the goal of car insurance or private dental insurance. Knowing that the entire insurance industry equates your car with part of your physical body as they underwrite is simply gross.
Teeth are not windshields or catalytic converters or bumpers. Teeth are a vital part of our bodies and our health.
Mothers (and fathers) across the country go without a windshield repair due to a lack of cash, whether they file a claim or not. Mothers (and fathers) across the country put off fixing broken teeth due to a lack of cash, whether they file a claim or not. If we didn’t know better, we would think it’s sort of a shakedown every time we need a dentist. It’s wrong. Teeth are not windshields or catalytic converters or bumpers. Teeth are a vital part of our bodies and our health.
I’ve gone almost a year without teeth now. Twenty-four of my teeth were pulled in July 2024. My health has suffered greatly as the weeks and months passed. Soon, I may get my partial dentures. Finally. My Delta Dental covers less than half of the overall cost. So, I went to our wonderful dental school for help. Voila. It seems insurance only gets you in the door, but that coverage and your debit/credit/cash gets you the help you need over time. A long, long time.
Passing a real beautiful bill would be one that insures the entire human body—womb to tomb. Teeth. Ears. Eyes. Toes. Nose. Fingers. Tummy. Health insurance for our whole body that leaves out no bodily system.
Last week, Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) in the U.S. Senate and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) in the House introduced the great, big, and beautiful bills that would improve and expand Medicare to cover my teeth and yours—our whole bodies. We would all pay our premiums through our normal tax process with coverage that really is comprehensive. We would not find ourselves unable to keep our teeth healthy from the get-go so that some far into the future Mother’s Day wish has to include a set of partial dentures, if needed, or better yet, keeps Mom’s teeth in better shape so there is no need to pull them to make way for metal and resin.
Imagine a publicly financed healthcare system that costs less and covers it all. No co-payments and no deductibles. No middle-of-the-night GoFundMe pages set up to pay for care. And no need to fear losing a job and insurance benefits. Your life and mine—equal and valued—in a system that sees not only our oral health but also our whole bodies as worthy of appropriate and necessary healthcare as determined by our doctors and nurses.
People resist the commercialism of Mother’s Day in America, yet I don’t have time for that. It seems that not having teeth has made every day for the past 10 months a reminder of how little we value mothers. If you don’t care enough about moms to make sure they do not spend months of quiet desperation, embarrassment, and shame around a lack of cash to pay for healthcare, at least buy your moms a supply of baby food to enjoy on her special day. If we do care to prevent the need to do that, we must pass improved and expanded Medicare for All. Mom will love it. And she’ll have teeth.
Happy Mother’s Day 2025.
More than half of all Major League Baseball teams are sponsored by companies that are exacerbating the climate emergency and the financial institutions that support them.
Millions of Americans were buoyed by the return of Major League Baseball (MLB) this spring. For the 50% of adults who follow the sport, it can serve as a welcome distraction given the dire news coming out of Washington these days.
But political reality can intrude even on the national pastime. It turns out that at least 17 of the 30 MLB teams are sponsored by companies that are exacerbating the climate crisis and the financial institutions that support them.
It’s called sportswashing, a riff on the term greenwashing. Companies sponsor leagues and teams to present themselves as good corporate citizens, increase visibility, and build public trust. According to a 2021 Nielsen study, 81% of fans completely or somewhat trust companies that underwrite sport teams, second only to the trust they have for friends and family. By sponsoring a team, companies increase the chance that fans will form the same bond with their brand that they have with the team.
Baseball club owners are much more concerned about their bottom line than their sponsors’ climate impacts.
Baseball teams are not alone in their pursuit of petrodollars. At least 35 U.S. pro basketball, football, hockey, and soccer teams have similar sponsorship deals that afford companies a range of promotional perks, from billboards and jersey logos to community outreach projects and facility naming rights, according to a survey conducted last fall by UCLA’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. U.S. sports leagues and teams also partner with banks and insurance companies that invest billions of dollars annually in coal, oil, and gas companies, all to the detriment of public health and the environment.
Most baseball aficionados are likely unaware that their favorite team is going to bat for the very companies and banks that are destroying the climate, but a growing number of fans in New York and Los Angeles are calling out the Mets and Dodgers, demanding that they sever their ties to the fossil fuel industry. And once they know, will fans in other MLB cities remain on the sidelines?
Oil, gas, and coal are largely responsible for the carbon pollution driving up world temperatures and triggering more dangerous extreme weather events. Last year was yet another record hot year, and the last 10 years have been the hottest in nearly 200 years of recordkeeping, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Those warmer temperatures certainly played a role in producing the 27 weather and climate disasters in the United States last year that caused at least $1 billion in damages, one less than the record set in 2023. And just this week, violent storms and tornadoes ripped through a swath of the nation’s midsection in what The Associated Press said could be a “record-setting period of deadly weather and flooding.”
Regardless, baseball club owners are much more concerned about their bottom line than their sponsors’ climate impacts. But with today’s annual MBL payrolls averaging $157 million, it is not hard to understand why teams pursue corporate sponsorships.
The team with the highest payroll—the Los Angeles Dodgers at $321 million—has a longtime partnership with Phillips 66, owner of 76 gas stations, whose orange-and-blue logo hovers above both Dodger stadium scoreboards and is scattered throughout the facility. Phillips 66, which also sponsors the St. Louis Cardinals, is among the top 10 U.S. air and surface water polluters in total pounds, according to the 2024 edition of Political Economy Research Institute’s “Top 100 Polluter Indexes,” and the 14th-largest carbon polluter, emitting 30.2 million metric tons in 2022.
Arco, owned by Marathon Petroleum, also advertises in Dodger Stadium. The country’s largest oil refiner with more than 7,000 Marathon and Arco gas stations nationwide, Marathon Petroleum is among the top 20 air, surface water, and carbon polluters in the country, according to PERI’s 2024 report, and the company and its subsidiaries have been fined more than $900 million for federal environmental violations since 2014.
The Findlay, Ohio-based company has been one of the Cleveland Guardians’ major corporate sponsors since 2021, and the team has been wearing Marathon Petroleum’s logo on their sleeves since the summer of 2023. The logo also enjoys prime placement in the Guardians’ ballpark and, as part of the uniform patch agreement, it is featured on the souvenir jerseys given to fans on two game days every season through 2026.
The Guardians are not the only team that has inked an oil patch deal. The Houston Astros (Oxy), Kansas City Royals (QuikTrip gas stations), and Texas Rangers (Energy Transfer) also display oil industry logos on their sleeves.
Both Oxy—Occidental Petroleum’s nickname—and the Astros’ other oil industry sponsor, ConocoPhillips, are headquartered in Houston, home to more than 400 oil and petrochemical facilities and among the 10 worst places in the country for air pollution. Occidental is one of the top 30 U.S. air polluters, 40 surface water polluters, and 60 carbon emitters, releasing 10.5 million metric tons of heat-trapping gases in 2022, according to PERI’s 2024 report. ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, came in 88th in PERI’s top 100 carbon polluters list.
Fossil fuel-based utilities also partner with MLB teams. Detroit’s local electric utility DTE, for instance, sponsors the Tigers. More than 40% of DTE’s electricity comes from coal, another 26% comes from fossil gas, and only 12% comes from wind and solar. Although the company is committed to reducing its reliance on coal over the next decade, it plans to replace it with fossil gas, not renewables.
Seven teams—and the league itself—have commercial tie-ins with financial institutions that have major fossil fuel industry investments.
The Milwaukee Brewers wear Northwestern Mutual patches on their sleeves. As of last year, the insurance company had $12.17 billion invested in 146 fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, and Shell, according to a 2024 report by the German environmental nonprofit Urgewald. Meanwhile, the Toronto Blue Jays’ patch sponsor, TD Bank, had nearly twice that amount invested in fossil fuels last year. The Toronto-based bank sunk $21.37 billion in 201 fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, which, by the way, sponsors the Sacramento Athletics and San Francisco Giants.
The Washington Nationals partner with Geico, which underwrites a mascot race featuring U.S. presidents running around the outfield warning track every home game. Geico is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, a multinational conglomerate that, as of last year, had investments of a whopping $95.8 billion in Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, and six other fossil fuel companies.
The other four teams—the Braves, Diamondbacks, Mets and Pirates—have lucrative, multiyear stadium-naming-rights agreements with oil-soaked banks.
Finally, official MLB sponsors include two insurance companies—the aforementioned Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Geico and New York Life—that have sizeable fossil fuel portfolios. Last year, New York Life had investments of $11.76 billion in 234 companies, including Duke Energy and the Southern Company.
Last June, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres castigated coal, oil, and gas companies—dubbing them the “godfathers of climate chaos” for spreading disinformation—and called for a worldwide ban on fossil fuel advertising. He also urged ad agencies to refuse fossil fuel clients and companies to stop taking their ads. So far, more than 1,000 advertising and public relations agencies worldwide have pledged to refuse working for fossil fuel companies, their trade associations, and their front groups.
Major League Baseball is behind the curve, but fans, environmentalists, and public officials in New York and Los Angeles are trying to bring their teams up to speed.
Two years ago, a coalition of groups joined New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams to urge Mets owner Steven Cohen to change the name of Citi Field. “Citi doesn’t represent the values of Mets fans or NYC,” Williams wrote in a tweet. “If they refuse to end their toxic relationship with fossil fuels, the Mets should end their partnership with Citi.”
Activists in New York and Los Angeles are hoping that more public officials—and more fans—will step up to the plate and pressure the teams to do the right thing.
Last summer, the groups that led the effort to persuade the Mets to drop Citigroup, including New York Communities for Change, Stop the Money Pipeline, and Climate Defenders, targeted Citigroup directly with their Summer of Heat on Wall Street campaign calling on the company to stop financing fossil fuels altogether.
In Los Angeles, more than 80 public interest groups, scientists, and environmental advocates signed an open letter last August calling on the Dodgers to cut its ties with Phillips 66. “Using tactics such as associating a beloved, trusted brand like the Dodgers with enterprises like 76,” the letter states, “the fossil fuel industry has reinforced deceitful messages that ‘oil is our friend,’ and that ‘climate change isn’t so bad.’” Since then, more than 28,000 Dodger fans have signed the letter, and last week the Sierra Club’s Los Angeles chapter held a rally outside of Dodger Stadium on opening day demanding that owner Mark Walter end his team’s Phillips 66 sponsorship deal.
The campaign has received support from some local public officials. Lisa Kaas Boyle, a former deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County’s environmental crimes division, was quoted in a L.A. Sierra Club press release in January. “Booting Big Oil out of baseball is up to the fans, because team owners won’t take responsibility,” she said. “This isn’t abstract. Bad air quality from wildfires has forced MLB teams to move games, a hurricane ripped the roof off of [Tampa’s] Tropicana Field, and the Dodgers had to give out free water in 103°F heat last summer. It’s almost becoming too hot to watch at Chavez Ravine.”
State Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-33), a lifelong Dodger fan, also endorsed the campaign. “Continuing to associate these [fossil fuel] corporations with our beloved boys in blue is not in our community or the planet’s best interest,” she recently told the City News Service, a Southern California news agency. “Ending the sponsorship with Phillips 66 would send the message that it’s time to end our embrace of polluting fossil fuels and work together toward a cleaner, greener future.”
Such entreaties, thus far, have been ignored. Both the Mets and the Dodgers have balked at the idea of intentionally walking away from sponsorships worth millions. But activists in New York and Los Angeles are hoping that more public officials—and more fans—will step up to the plate and pressure the teams to do the right thing. As that baseball sage Yogi Berra astutely pointed out, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
This column was originally posted on Money Trail, a new Substack site co-founded by Elliott Negin.
Major insurers are denying legitimate claims following extreme weather events while underwriting fossil fuels and lining their CEOs’ pocketbooks.
Do you know that you’re in good hands with Allstate? Or how about State Farm? Do you know that, like a good neighbor, State Farm is there? Of course you do. Insurance companies have been blasting slogans like these at us for years now. In 2022 alone, Allstate spent $617 million on advertising. State Farm spent an even more whopping $1.05 billion.
But if insurance giants like State Farm truly rated as our “good neighbors,” they’d be behaving—in real life—quite a bit differently than their award-winning advertising suggests.
In hurricane-plagued Florida, for instance, State Farm last year denied 46.4% of homeowner claims, refusals that directly impacted over 76,000 households.
Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.
“Property insurers who deny legitimate claims,” notes Martin Weiss, the founder of the nation’s only independent insurer rating agency, “are sending the implicit message, ‘If you don’t like it, sue us.’”
To add injury to that insult, Weiss adds, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had just before last year signed into law new legislation that makes policyholder lawsuits against insurers “far more difficult.”
For recently retired State Farm CEO Michael Tipsord, insurance industry lobbying victories along that Florida line have helped him pocket some stunning personal rewards. Tipsord pulled down $24.4 million in compensation two years ago, almost $4 million more than his industry’s second-highest 2022 CEO pay total. Tipsord had pocketed even more, $24.5 million, in 2021.
“CEOs are living high on the hog while increasing insurance premiums for people living paycheck to paycheck,” the Consumer Federation of America’s Michael DeLong charged last October. “Insurers are telling regulators that ordinary consumers have to pay much more for auto and home insurance because the companies are struggling with inflation and climate change, but they are quietly handing CEOs gigantic bonuses.”
Overall, DeLong’s Consumer Federation reports, the chief execs at America’s ten largest personal insurance lines collected over a quarter-billion dollars in CEO compensation for their services in 2021 and 2022.
If we really had a “good neighbor” at State Farm—or any other insurance giant—those companies wouldn’t have been spending recent years denying relief to the victims of climate change. They would have been insisting instead that lawmakers crack down on the fossil-fuel corporate giants doing so much to foul our planet.
Top insurers did make an early feint in that direction over a half-century ago. Way back in 1973, notes Peter Bosshard, the global coordinator of the U.S.-based Insure Our Future campaign, “the insurance industry first warned about climate risks.” But that warning, in the years to come, wouldn’t stop insurers from “underwriting and investing in the expansion of fossil fuels.”
Giant insurance companies that actually took climate science seriously, Bosshard observes, would have been “suing fossil fuel companies, to make polluters pay for the growing costs of climate disasters and keep insurance affordable for climate-affected communities.”
Insurers haven’t been doing any of that.
”Insurers talk a lot about their climate commitments and supporting their clients through the energy transition, but this is plain greenwashing,” charges Ariel Le Bourdonnec, a Reclaim Finance insurance activist. “They are still profiting from providing cover that allows companies to develop new fossil fuel projects. Insurers could be a force for change, but instead they are undermining climate action.”
Other critics are emphasizing that insurance industry execs have gone beyond “greenwashing” to “bluelining,” as Lilith Fellowes-Granda, a Center for American Progress associate director, points out. These execs are increasing prices and withdrawing services “from regions they perceive to be at high environmental risk.” These moves typically hit hardest on the “communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.”
Climate activists are advocating for a variety of policy changes to reverse these dynamics, everything from making sure property insurers must share the risks they cover to ensuring underserved communities access to affordable insurance.
Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.
Inside the insurance industry, as in every other major U.S. economic sector, that ratio between CEO and worker has soared over recent decades.
In 2023, the chief executive at Chubb Ltd., Evan Greenberg, took home $27.7 million, enough to make him that year’s top-paid American property and casualty insurer. Those millions added up to 452 times more than the annual pay of the typical Chubb employee. In 2022, Greenberg pocketed a mere 346 times his company’s typical employee pay.
Back in 1965, the Economic Policy Institute noted last month in its latest annual CEO pay report, the top execs at major U.S. corporations only averaged 21 times what typical American workers earned. Nearly a quarter-century later, in 1989, CEOs were still only averaging 61 times worker pay.
How could we restore greater equity to corporate compensation and, at the same time, give top corporate executives an incentive to care about more than simply maximizing their own personal compensation? Lawmakers at the state and federal levels have over recent years advanced dozens of proposals that tie corporate tax rates to the size of the gap between top executive and worker pay.
In all these proposals, the higher a corporation’s CEO-worker pay ratio, the higher that corporation’s tax rate.
The Institute for Policy Studies has compiled an exhaustive guide to these CEO-worker pay gap proposals. Maybe the winds of Hurricane Milton will help give these moves the momentum they need to turn into law—and give top execs a reason to care about something more than the size of their own personal pay.
"The planet is running out of time and the banks are running out of excuses," said climate leader Bill McKibben.
A coalition of more than 240 advocacy groups on Wednesday launched a "Shareholder Showdown" campaign in support of shareholder resolutions urging climate action and respect for Indigenous rights at major U.S. and Canadian banks and insurance companies.
According to campaign coordinator Stop the Money Pipeline, the resolutions—which were filed by investors including the New York City and state pension funds, Sierra Club Foundation, and others—would require banks and insurance companies to "phase out their financing of companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion, report on projects that could violate Indigenous rights, use absolute emissions rather than emissions intensity targets, disclose 2030 transition plans, and hold directors accountable at banks that are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways."
The resolutions were timed to precede the companies' annual general meetings.
"This campaign is called Shareholder Showdown because we're in for a real fight—we're up against some globally powerful institutions," Arielle Swernoff, Stop the Money Pipeline's U.S. banks campaign manager, explained in an opinion piece published Wednesday by Common Dreams. "But organized people can achieve anything, and together we will stop the flow of money to fossil fuels and climate destruction."
Bill McKibben, co-founder of the climate group 350.org, said in a statement that "the planet is running out of time and the banks are running out of excuses—everyone from the pope to the secretary-general of the [United Nations] have called on them finally to act with clarity and conviction to help with the planet's greatest crisis, and shareholders should demand no less."
Among the resolutions filed are:
" Climate change is an existential crisis that can overwhelm a person in scale and size, impossible to address," said Tara Houska of the Giniw Collective, an Indigenous women and two-spirit-led frontline resistance group fighting fossil fuel projects like Line 3 in Minnesota.
"Big bank shareholders possess an enormous amount of influence on the world's emissions," Houska added. "A roomful of people can impact the disastrous course we are currently on. No more lip service or empty greenwashing—we need action, now."
Fresh after Bernie Sanders' call for "a fifty-state strategy... to plant the flag of progressive politics" nationwide, new reporting on Friday suggests that Hillary Clinton's campaign won't budge further to the left.
After Clinton claimed more victories in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania this week, Sanders said, "We are in this race until the last vote is cast," adding that his campaign would head "to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform."
Observers say that steps forward on issues that would constitute such a platform can already be seen in the race. As Max Ehrenfreund writes at Washington Post's Wonkblog Friday,
In the course of fending off Sanders's challenge, Clinton appears to have conceded to him on a couple of major economic policy issues. The former U.S. senator and secretary of state has abandoned the centrist positions she previously held on trade and Social Security and taken stances closer to Sanders's views.
Ehrenfreund writes that that's not all that surprising, given the factors that are different from Sanders. He points to data from the Pew Research Center showing Americans' attitudes on various issues, including race, poverty, regulation, and foreign policy, are becoming more progressive. He notes the influence of politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in areas like Social Security.
However, Amie Parnes writes at The Hill, "Clinton supporters argue the former Secretary of State has already been forced to the left by Sanders, and can't risk moving further ahead of a general election."
While political talk show host Bill Press told The Hill that Clinton should not "move back to the center," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) told the political website that her campaign couldn't make any more leftward concessions, saying, "I don't know what's left to extract."
Cleaver added that "[Sanders has] already impacted this election probably more than anyone else, including Donald Trump," and then suggested it was time for Sanders to help gather support for his rival.
Parnes also cites an anonymous Clinton ally who said, "We can't do it," regarding meeting some of Sanders' policy demands.
As Sanders sees it, the Democratic Party as a whole is in crisis, saying Thursday that it "has not been clear about which side they are on on the major issues facing this country."
Speaking to thousands at a rally in Eugene, Ore., Sanders said, "The Democratic Party has to reach a fundamental conclusion: Are we on the side of working people or big money interests? Do we stand with the elderly, the children, and the sick and the poor, or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the drug companies and the insurance companies?"
Sanders added, "Now our job is not just to revitalize the Democratic Party—not only to open the doors to young people and working people—our job is to revitalize American democracy."
Ehrenfreund concludes in his piece that despite securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders' successful pushes on key issues mean "he might be on the winning side in the contest over the party's future."
Bloomberg's delegate tracker shows Clinton leading Sanders with 1,645 pledged delegates compared to his 1,318.
The next Democratic primary is in Indiana, with 92 delegates, on May 3.
Bemoaning a failing democratic process that leaves too many people out, Bernie Sanders on Thursday said his campaign would continue to bring disenfranchised people into the political process. He also said the Democratic Party as a whole must forge a 50-state strategy to restore civic vibrancy and fuel meaningful outcomes on the key issues people care about in every community nationwide.
"The Democratic Party has to reach a fundamental conclusion: Are we on the side of working people or big money interests? Do we stand with the elderly, the children, and the sick and the poor, or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the drug companies and the insurance companies?"
--Bernie Sanders
Describing the Republican Party's platform as a "fringe agenda," Sanders said that the problem of recent years is not that the GOP is "winning elections" but rather that the "Democratic Party is losing" them.
"In November of 2014," Sanders explained, "63 percent of people did not vote. Eighty percent of young people and low-income people did not vote. And I think the reason for that is that the Democratic Party up to now has not been clear about which side they are on on the major issues facing this country."
"Here is the truth," he continued. "You can't be for Wall Street and for the working people of this country. You cannot be for the drug companies and the needs of senior citizens and veterans. You cannot be on the side of those workers who have lost their jobs because of disastrous trade agreements and support those corporations who have thrown millions of our workers out on the street. The Democratic Party has to reach a fundamental conclusion: Are we on the side of working people or big money interests? Do we stand with the elderly, the children, and the sick and the poor, or do we stand with Wall Street speculators and the drug companies and the insurance companies?"
Sanders added, "Now our job is not just to revitalize the Democratic Party--not only to open the doors to young people and working people--our jobs is to revitalize American democracy."
As Common Dreams previously reported, Sanders' remarks on Thursday echoed a message earlier this week regarding his intention to carry his campaign through to the conclusion of the primary season - even as the campaign has acknowledged his path to claiming the nomination over rival Hillary Clinton remains difficult.
Beyond the corrupt campaign finance system, Sanders said Thursday that the political system itself--"which makes it hard for people to participate"--is now clearly at a crisis point.
"I want to see this country have one of the highest voter turnout rates in the world, not one of the lowest," he said. "That is why, in my view, the Democratic Party has to be very clear: We need automatic registration." If Republicans are going to make it harder for people to vote, he said, the Democrats stated goal must make it easier to vote.
"That's why, if you are 18 years old in this country, you should be registered to vote - end of discussion," he said to applause. "On those days when it's applicable, we need same-day registration. We need open primaries."
Then, invoking the need for a broader state-by-state strategy, Sanders discussed prospects for transforming the party's relationship with those many states, largely in the southern section of the country, that routinely elect Republican and other right-wing lawmakers.
"The truth is," Sanders argued, "the Democratic Party has turned its back on many of those states. We need a fifty-state strategy. We need to plant the flag of progressive politics in every state in this country. It's great that the Democrats do well in New England and in the East Coast and West Coast states and in the Midwest... but you can't turn your back on working people, elderly people, children, and poor people in 25 states in this country. We've got to fight for every one of those states."