By now, most people have heard about the earthquake in Japan. While this type of catastrophe is terrible for any country, it underscores the arguments against nuclear power.

The quake hit the largest nuclear plant in Japan, and has caused over 50 safety problems, including leaking radioactive water, and 100 drums of radioactive waste that fell over causing some lids to open.

Recently the nuclear industry in the U.S. has been promoting building new reactors as a solution to our energy problems, claiming that safety has greatly improved in the twenty years since Chernobyl.

That being said, if a massive quake hit a wind farm, the worst side effect would be wind turbines falling over, and people losing power for a little bit. Same with a solar plant. But when it's nuclear, the potential danger sky rockets.

While it appears there are no significant long term problems coming out of Japan's plant, at least not right now, the potential for a nuclear plant to become a major catastrophe is gigantic, and that's just something we can't afford to gamble with.

As I drove through Utah last weekend and saw thousands of acres of forest burn up in the largest fire in the state's history, I was reminded of the need for sound long-term forest management. Decades of mismanagement, timber-sales, clearcutting, and road-building have taken their toll on our forests - and it's critical that our next president take the issue seriously.

But for some reason we're having a hard time finding out where our 2008 candidates stand on forest protection. Maybe that's because the current political dialogue is more centered on haircuts than clearcuts. That's a problem.

Sen. Clinton is the candidate of focus this week, and overall, we'd give her pretty good marks. As you'll see below, she supports good policy on forest protection, but she has yet to actually talk about her position on the campaign trail.

Please take a minute right now and send the Senator a message - ask her to protect our remaining unspoiled wilderness, and to outline her long term management plan for forest protection.

We look at three major categories to gauge a candidate's support for our forests. Firstly, are they taking money from the logging industry? Secondly, what have they done to help or harm our forests? Thirdly, what are they saying on the campaign trail?

How does Sen. Clinton rate?

Money from the logging industry : Since 2000, Sen. Clinton has received $17,250 from the logging industry. In 2006, she received $8,200, placing her the 27th highest recipient in the Senate, and 5th highest Democrat in the Senate.

Votes on Forest Issues : Sen. Clinton is one of 18 co-sponsors of S. 1478 - legislation which would permanently protect close to 60 million acres of our national forest. She has also voted to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling.

Campaign Trail : To date, there is nothing on her campaign website about national forests, nor does it appear to be a central part of her campaign message.

Overall, it's great that she is supporting forest protection and fighting for protection of the Arctic Refuge. At the same time, we believe she needs to pledge this support as a candidate and she needs to layout her long term management plan.

Take a minute right now, and send her a message, encouraging her to take these step.

In gearing up for this summer's 'Forest First' campaign, I've been doing loads of research on forest issues, and our candidates for president in 2008.

I've been looking through FEC filings, running down info on Open Secrets as to who gets money from the timber companies, and I've been pouring over candidate websites.

And I'm a little startled - not by how much money there is (a lot), but by how little candidates seem to be talking about this particular issue. Each week for the next couple months, we'll be sending out emails to the list letting folks now about candidate's records on forest protection, the money they get, and their stance on further protection.

Strangely, however, when you go to most candidate's websites, under their 'environmental policy' there is typically quite a bit about global warming (though much of it seems to be hot air). Anyone who's been keeping up with our work here at EA for a while knows that we're fully on board with the fight to stop global warming, so I'm not upset per se that that is the focus for so many candidates, but I am troubled that it is often the only environmental issue they talk about.

To think that global warming is the only environmental issue most Americans care about is foolhardy in the extreme. Most polls, in fact, indicate that most folks have only the most basic understanding of global warming, whereas pretty much everybody understands the love of nature, of wilderness, and of the forests.

This just shows me that while all the candidates appear to talk a good game about global warming (and some will likely enact good policies if elected), it's a stretch to say that there really is a environmentalist candidate running.

I don't particularly want to bag on the upcoming Live Earth concerts this weekend. Already the anti-global warming crowd is crowing about how the concerts are going to cause pollution, litter, etc.

I've been pretty supportive of the whole idea. Estimates are that two billion people will watch the concerts in one form or another, a staggering fact. If even the smallest percentage of those take action in some way to demand real change on how our governments deal with the problem, it could bring about massive change.

Except, from looking at the Live Earth website, I'm not confident this will happen. At first glance, things seem fine. Big concerts, tons of people and so forth. But, if you want to check out, say, the NY event, and click on the New York link, you're taken here. If something seems funny to you, you're probably right. The giant Chevy logo at the top middle of the page. Really? Chevy?

Chevy, owned now by General Motors is sponsoring Live Earth's online coverage - interestingly, when you're on the first Live Earth page, under 'partners', Chevy is nowhere to be found. eBay yes, Chevy no.

General Motors is not exactly a company I think of when I think of stopping global warming. A look at their donations to the political process here in the U.S. shows that they've donated almost 10 million dollars to federal candidates since 1990. Guess what they talk a lot about? Not raising out national fuel economy standards.

I'm a pretty firm believer that you can be judged by the company you keep, and I'm pretty skeptical of a Live Earth/Chevy alliance actually doing anything to truly combat global warming and CO2 emissions.

Poking around the Live Earth site a little more, you'll find their 'Action Center', which includes myriad solutions for combating global warming. 95% of them are based on personal, not corporate or governmental, responsibility.

Change your light bulbs (Phillips is another sponsor), lower your thermostat, keep air in your tires, wash clothes in cold water, plant a tree, and so forth.

About three quarters down the action page, it suggests,

SIGN UP, SOUND OFF Petition for change in your local governments and get involved in one of the many environmental groups in your area.

WRITE THE POWER
Our planet's future demands legislation today. Let your civic leaders and representatives know that the polar bears aren’t the only ones skating on thin ice.

Two fairly nebulous activities, with no follow up resources, like say the phone number for Congress (202-224-3121).

I'm sorry to be that guy, but what we need are global emission caps. What we need is a doubling of the national gas mileage standard, and what we need is for corporate America to take responsibility for their actions.

Don't get me wrong - my house has CFL bulbs, we all walk or bike to work, we recycle and compost - but any set of solutions that puts the responsibility 100% in the hands of the consumers is nowhere near being a global solution. We do need societal change, but we also need the government to hold our companies responsible.

After, what if instead of making it about consumers choosing between good and evil, we just got rid of the evil choices altogether?

I love hiking. Whether in the Adirondacks of upstate New York, the 14ers in the Rocky Mountains, the red rocks of Arches in Southern Utah, or the rolling hills of North Carolina, I'm just nutty about walking around in the wilderness.

The thing is, millions of Americans are - and the experiences we have in our mountains and forests lead us all to the same conclusion. These areas need to be protected. Sadly, I have a feeling that few of our elected officials have shared this experience with us.

So this summer, as part of our 'Forests First' campaign, we're putting together photo albums that we'll be sending to Congress and the 2008 presidential candidates. We're collecting 1,000 pictures of people in the forests and wild places they love, to remind our elected officials that wilderness protection needs to be an American priority.

Today, I'm asking you send me one of your pictures to add to the album.

To send a picture, just click here . Then, when you're done, please tell your friends about the effort.

You can also check out the progress of our rally here.

And if you're going camping or hiking for July 4th, bring along that digital camera, and send us your pics!

If you're interested in making my blood boil, simply write an article entitled, 'Environmentalists Go Nuclear'.

Come on!

First of all, nuclear energy will not solve our global warming problems. Global warming is largely caused by CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions come largely from cars (over two-thirds of U.S. CO2 emissions come from tailpipe pollution). Therefore, unless the nuke industry is going to hire Doc Brown to put a Mr. Fusion in every car, it's not a legitimate sollution.

Secondly, stop lumping environmentalists in together. From the article:

Bill Chameides, chief scientist for Environmental Defense, said anything that helps alleviate global warming must be an energy option.

"I think it's somewhat disingenuous that folks who agree that global warming is such a serious issue could sort of dismiss [nuclear energy] out of hand," he said. "It's got to be at least considered."

Bill, I think global warming is a serious issue, and am more than happy to dismiss nuclear power out of hand, not just because it won't really solve the problem, but also because nuclear power has the potential to kill millions, and permanently destroy whole ecosystems. Dismiss out of hand? With a smile on my face.

Of course, what galls me is that the media turns to middle-of-the-road groups like Environmental Defense when they need a quote to show that environmentalists are lame hypocrites.

If you go on ED's website and tool around for a bit, their solution to global warming is to put 100% of the burden for change on the consumer. Want to save the earth? Buy a light bulb and get a Prius. They put 0% of the responsibility on corporate America. Maybe it's in there, but I saw not one sentence on getting auto-makers to make more efficient cars, shutting down coal plants, or any other major national action that would have a real impact on global warming.

Of course, The Wall Street Journal, perhaps the pinnacle of aggressive grassroots environmental activism conservative major national newspapers called ED, 'one of the hottest environmental groups around'.

It pains and saddens me that this type of story can pass for journalism. For instance, in response to concerns that nuclear power plants make for excellent terrorist targets, the journalist quote Scott Peterson, a nuclear industry lobbyists as follows: 'Nuclear plants also have elaborate security, including heavily armed guards trained to deal with various attack scenarios, Peterson said.'

The journalist completely fails to point out that a 'heavily armed guard' is unlikely to stop, say, a hijacked airplane or a suicide bomber. Rather, they just accept the response from the guy who's job it is to sell the public on nuclear power, surely an objective and honest source for information.