itsyournature

Last Monday, the Democratic presidential candidates debated on CNN. And once again, there were exactly zero questions asked about global warming. The perplexing absence of discussion about an issue that countless scientists, economists, and politicians hold up as the fundamental challenge of our times is fast becoming familiar. (Earlier debates in Nevada and Florida similarly didn't touch the subject.) It seems a bit dubious, then, that all three of these CNN-hosted events have been sponsored by the coal industry lobby group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC).

Now the League of Conservation Voters has been calling attention to Big Media's blind eye towards global warming for awhile now through their "What Are They Waiting For?" campaign. And, indeed, on MSNBC last Thursday, Tim Russert finally brought clean energy and global warming into the primary conversation. Still, CNN hasn't touched the issue, and the exclusive sponsorship of the debates by the industry that stands to lose the most by strong global warming legislation is certainly raising eyebrows.

The placement of ABEC's "Clean Coal-America's Power" slogan across print and tv spots for the debates are revealing, but not isolated. The debate sponsorship is but a small part of a $35 million PR campaign (referred to by plenty as a "disinformation campaign") targeting early primary and caucus states, aimed at rallying public support for coal power and to halt the progress of global warming legislation now making its way through Congress. In Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina alone, ABEC has spent $1.3 Million on billboards, print ads, and tv and radio spots, and has even hired folks to pass leaflets and carry signs outside of debate sites. Head to the CNN Debates website and you can't miss the big flash ad for "Clean Coal."

Tonight and tomorrow, there are two more CNN debates, and again, both are being brought to you by ABEC. Considering his preference for asking the tough questions about UFOs and Halloween costumes, what are the chances Wolf Blitzer will call upon the candidates to discuss global warming and clean energy in these debates sponsored by coal? You can drop him a line here and let him know you're one of the 87% of Americans who want cleaner energy and that you'd love to hear how the next president would deliver it. Here's what I sent (feel free to c&p it as your own!):

Mr. Blitzer-
As one of the 87% of Americans that feel that clean, renewable energy is a "good decision" for America, and as one that agrees with the IPCC and our nation's top scientists that global warming is one of fundamental and crucial issues of our time, I've been aghast and offended that in all three of your CNN presidential debates, there hasn't yet been ONE SINGLE QUESTION asked about global warming legislation.

While I'm reluctant to even consider that the sponsorship of these debates by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), an outspoken front group for the coal industry, would possibly effect your questioning of the candidates, I'm at a loss to figure what else could be the reason for your silence on this issue that over half of Americans agree is essential to our national well-being.

I implore you then to quell my nerves and silence the critics by asking real and challenging questions about the candidates' stances on global warming and clean energy policy. If this issue remains unmentioned in the debates tonight and tomorrow night, I will feel strongly--and will feel compelled to spread the word--that CNN's journalistic integrity has been compromised by this unprecedented sponsorship of a presidential debate by an industry lobby.
Sincerely,
Ben Jervey

Increased vulnerability to worsening summer storms? Prolonged and more frequent droughts? Heat waves? Melting ice shelves?

None of these getting you riled up about global warming? What if I were to tell you that our nation's preeminent annual winter sporting event was in trouble? I'm talking, of course, about the Idatarod. Seems the warming Alaskan winters are forcing officials to make some serious logistical changes. From the AP:

Citing a warming climate and sprawling development, officials with the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race said Wednesday they were implementing permanent logistical changes that in recent years have become the norm for the March event.

The March 1 ceremonial start in Anchorage will go 11 miles, seven shorter than the traditional route. The actual competitive start of the 1,100-mile race the following day will move 30 miles north to Willow from the traditional site in Wasilla, Iditarod headquarters and part of the fastest growing region of the state.

On a brighter note, the NHL might be forced to move some teams back to the Canandian and Northern U.S. cities where they belong. (I know--hockey is played indoors. Except when it's not.)

Radiohead's an easy band to love. Not just because their the best rock band on the planet (IM-not so-HO), but because they take serious issues seriously, and talk about them with candor, intelligence, and thought. Like global warming.

Consider these tidbits:

--For their upcoming US/European tour, they're partnering with the Oxford-based company Best Foot Forward to reduce the ecological footprint of the band's tour--right down to the collective impact of fan's travel. From a Treehugger post:

After gathering lots of information about their own environmental impact, Radiohead wanted to include their fans’ footprint too. Best Foot Forward has analysed the two different types of tours Radiohead recently did in Amercia; the big gigs held out of town versus the smaller ones in city centres. This way they could find out which type of touring has the lowest impact ‘per person entertained’ as bassist Colin explains on their web site, based on transportation, food consumption and waste left behind by the fans.

Because the transport mode of the fans makes a big difference when it comes to carbon emissions and environmental impact, Radiohead encourages people to use public transport to get to their shows. They therefore have decided to play as many gigs as they can in cities because those provide better transport possibilities and don’t require private cars to get to the event.

--Or Thom Yorke's conversation in Wired with David Byrne, during which they touch upon these same touring concerns:

Yorke: ... [At] the moment we make money principally from touring. Which is hard for me to reconcile because I don't like all the energy consumption, the travel. It's an ecological disaster, traveling, touring.

Byrne: Well, there are the biodiesel buses and all that.

Yorke: Yeah, it depends where you get your biodiesel from. There are ways to minimize it. We did one of those carbon footprint things recently where they assessed the last period of touring we did and tried to work out where the biggest problems were. And it was obviously everybody traveling to the shows.

Byrne: Oh, you mean the audience.

Yorke: Yeah. Especially in the U.S. Everybody drives. So how the hell are we going to address that? The idea is that we play in municipal places with some transport system alternative to cars. And minimize flying equipment, shipping everything. We can't be shipped though.

--Or, more metaphorically, Yorke's comments about "sustainable urban planning" through the lens of record contracts:

Signing a new major-label contract "would have killed us straight off," he added. "Money makes you numb, as M.I.A. wrote. I mean, it's tempting to have someone say to you, 'You will never have to worry about money ever again,' but no matter how much money someone gives you -- what, you're not going to spend it? You're not going to find stupid ways to get rid of it? Of course you are. It's like building roads and expecting there to be less traffic.

--And let's not forget Yorke's 2006 solo effort, The Eraser, which was entirely inspired by global warming. Or, actually, on the lack of political action to address it. As he told the LA Times:

In the paper one day, [Friends of the Earth activist] Jonathan Porritt was basically dismissing any commitment that the working government has toward addressing global warming, saying that their gestures were like King Canute trying to stop the tide. And that just went "kaching" in my head. It's not political, but that's what I feel is happening. We're all King Canutes, holding our hands out, saying, "It'll go away. I can make it stop." No, you can't.

IYN is no stranger to bands that back up their beliefs with action, and we're pretty fired up to see that one of the most influential and (to be blunt) awesome bands of our era is so hip to the real issues of our times. Maybe we'll catch them at All Points West. It is, after all, just a short train ride from IYN's NYC HQ.

China is making news with its new plan to clean up its polluted lakes. Read the full article in the New York Times which explains how the Chinese government plans to reduce pollution in China's lakes by 2010, with the hopes of returning them to their original state by 2030.

Is it just me, or would anyone else like to personally roll up this article and smack President Bush over the head with it?

Before you head out for a pricey sushi dinner, you might want to check out a recent blog by our friends at simplesteps.

They site a recent article in the New York Times which found extremely high levels of mercury in sushi bought from 20 different manhattan stores and restaurants. While pregnant women and children are the most susceptible to mercury present in fish, the rest of us should also be wary of how much and what types of fish we eat.

Check out this handy guide from the NRDC to help you make better choices when you can't fight the craving for some sashimi.