

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.

Today, a new set of polling released by Data for Progress shows that US voters overwhelmingly support the federal government taking strong action to curb the climate impact of Wall Street in order to prevent economic crises driven by the financing of fossil fuels and other risky, high-emitting sectors.
The polling shows that voters want the Biden administration to apply its "whole-of-government" approach -- including action by the Treasury Department, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, and other financial regulators--to implement climate finance reforms that prevent major US banks and other financial institutions from further exacerbating the climate crisis and its economic ramifications.
Additionally, the polling shows that the vast majority US voters across demographic lines want more transparency about their bank or other financial institutions' contributions to climate change, and they believe that Wall Street firms' long-term climate pledges -- such as the recent wave of "net zero by 2050" commitments -- are not credible without concrete action plans.
Key findings from the polling include:
More details from the poll are available HERE.
The new findings come as the Biden administration is reportedly finalizing an executive order to "develop a strategy on climate-related risks for public and private financial assets." Members of the Biden administration, such as Treasury Secretary Yellen and Acting SEC Chair Lee, have begun to highlight climate change as a key financial risk issue. However, climate actions by US financial regulators have been minimal thus far, and several key climate finance positions still remain unfilled.
Climate and financial reform advocates have put forward numerous policy recommendations in recent weeks and months, including, among others: Public Citizen and Americans for Financial Reform's "Climate Roadmap for U.S. Financial Regulation" report, Evergreen Action's five steps for SEC and Treasury, and Stop the Money Pipeline's priorities for the Biden administration.
In response to the new polling data, members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition issued the following statements:
Ben Cushing, Financial Advocacy Campaign Manager, Sierra Club: "The American people have paid the price before when Wall Street's risky and destructive practices have gone unchecked, and they clearly don't want to do it again. The Biden administration has made bold climate commitments and indicated it will treat climate change as a financial risk issue; this new polling shows it also has the overwhelming support of US voters to act on these promises. There's no time to waste."
Moira Birss, Climate and Finance Director, Amazon Watch: "Climate policy has so far been left to markets, and now we're in a climate crisis. It's time that the US government take the reins back from Wall Street so we can assure the rapid, justice-centered decarbonization necessary for a livable planet."
Erika Thi Patterson, Climate and Environmental Justice Director, Action Center on Race and the Economy: "Wall Street has been financing environmental racism and climate destruction in Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities for generations. We can't trust these institutions to self-regulate us out of a climate crisis or to address decades of harm to frontline communities of color. The majority of voters want the federal government to stand up to Wall Street to protect front-line communities and our planet from further climate disaster."
Yevgeny Shrago, Policy Counsel, Public Citizen: "Banks, insurers and asset managers have been gambling with our health and our future for too long. Financial regulators have an obligation to use all of the tools that they already have to immediately start protecting the financial system and front-line communities from Wall Street's contributions to climate chaos."
Jason Opena Disterhoft, Climate and Energy Senior Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network: "By a ratio of 2.5 to 1, Americans say that financial institutions' 2050 commitments are 'empty promises' without a concrete action plan. Unless they start to immediately phase out their fossil and deforestation financing, banks' 2050 pledges will continue to be met with fully justified skepticism."
Tracey Lewis, Senior Policy Analyst, 350.org: "It is clear, a majority of Americans want our Central Bank to do their job, and protect the economy from climate chaos. The people are tired of the Federal Reserve's knee-jerk reflex of bailing out Wall Street, while dragging their feet on managing climate risk. It's high-time for some meaningful action from the Fed."
Dorothy Slater, Research Assistant, Revolving Door Project: "The American public has made clear it is hungry for legitimate financial regulation to confront the global climate crisis. Industry pressure on financial regulators to avoid inconvenient disruptions to their business models will be enormous, so we need strong climate leaders throughout the executive branch who are on the public's side. Details are consequential here, and we can't afford regulators who side with Wall Street over the planet."
Further background:
Read the full polling memo from Data for Progress here.
Find shareable graphics of all the topline findings from Data for Progress here.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."