I've got to admit that so far I've been amazingly underwhelmed by the media coverage of mountaintop removal mining. For example, a Google news search of 'mountaintop removal' brings up 110 stories. A Google news search on 'Paris Hilton' brings up 6,525, Burger King brings 1,807, and iPhone a whopping 11,337.

This is a little ridiculous.

Thankfully, what little coverage does exist, has been quite good. For instance, The Boston Globe editorialized against the new Bush proposal today, and the NYT ran six letters on the subject last week.

But, let's face it, this isn't nearly enough coverage.

And, truth be told, it's not just the 'mainstream media' failing to cover the issue. So far I've found very little coverage in any of the major political blogs or online outlets, save Grist, and in particular David, 'coal is the death of us all' Roberts, who have stuck by this story for quite some time.

The bottom line is that this is an issue that needs to be picked up on. It may not be as (forgive the pun) sexy as the Sen. Craig story, or seem as important as the Gonzales issue, but the bottom line is that we're allowing the coal industry to run roughshod through Appalachia, and the people fighting this battle down there need our help, our encouragement, and our support.

So, I'm throwing down the gauntlet - talk about this issue. Blog about it, write letters to newspapers about it, talk to Presidential candidates when they stump in your town, and dear God in heaven, if you haven't done so, please tell the Bush Administration you oppose an expansion of mountaintop removal mining.

Because you know what? This is kind of activity is not acceptable in ANYBODY'S backyard.

This summer, hundreds of EA members have sent me pictures of themselves and their loved ones in the forests and wild places they treasure, and we're working to get the message out to our 2008 presidential candidates - we love our forests, and want them protected.

As the campaign season is getting into high gear, this is an important message to get across to people like Gov. Bill Richardson. Gov. Richardson has stood up to the Bush Administration on forests, and supports protection for millions of acres of national forests - but we've yet to see a plan for long term forest management.

Today I'm asking everyone to send him a message - he's done good work, and can do even better in making sure our forests are protected. To email him, just click here.

In 2000, President Clinton protected almost sixty million acres of unspoiled national forest land from road building and logging. In 2001, as one of his first acts, President Bush rescinded that rule, opting to allow state governors to determine what happens with these areas.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was one of the first governors to request that all 1.7 million acres in his state be protected - and we applaud him for that.

But, when you're running for president, it's not enough to react - you need to make bold policy decisions, and have long term plans in place when it comes to our national forests. click here to send the Governor a message.

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.

Now this should be fun. As you know, President Bush has launched a crazy scheme to sell off up to 800,000 acres of national forests and other public land as a way to raise money for the federal budget.

Our allies in Congress have been awakened and are rightly outraged. But we decided that we should take this fight right into the belly of the beast. We want to run an ad in every major newspaper in the district of Rep. Richard Pombo, the pointman on the President plan.

The ad campaign will reach nearly 150,000 people in Pombo's district.

To kick-off the effort, we are asking people to vote on the ad they prefer.

The two ads: "Going Once, Going Twice" & "Feeding Time" are below:

To view the ads close up and to vote for your favorite, head over here.

Field & Stream has a short article on the Bush administration's proposed sell-off of our public lands. The piece discredits the administration line that "most of the lands in question are small, isolated parcels, usually surrounded by private property and, hence, "difficult to manage."

Environmental Action has started an on-line photo rally to pressure Congress to stop this deal. Check it out here.

Daniel Donato, the lead researcher of an Oregon State study which concluded that logging after a forest fire may not be the best policy (at least for the forest), was taken to task by a congressional commmittee last week. The story, which was reported in the Washington Post today, chronicles another episode in the sordid tales of "Researchers Gone Wild: Get Me a Leash".

Of course, as researchers tend to do, Daniel Donato defended himself before the House Committee by saying:

This forest study should not be viewed as, nor was it intended to be, the final word on post-fire logging.

Yet to the logging industry's backers, it was heresy that any study dare contradict their economic interests. True to form, Members of Congress such as Rep. Walden (R-OR) and Baird (D-Wash) resorted to personal attacks against Donato, charging him of:

a long list of professional failings and character flaws, including "deliberate bias," lack of humility and ignorance of statistical theory.

Now I don't know much about Donato personally and haven't read the study itself either. But that one study by graduate students at Oregon State could cause such a backlash is quite indicative of the level of debate that exists in Congress. Then again, given that the study was peer-reviewed, published in the journal Science, and has produced similar findings to other studies may just be enough reason for all the sound and fury. At least it provided the industry and its backers reason enough to take Donato to the woodshed.