The study finds that we could reduce global warming pollution two to nine times more by conserving or restoring forests and grasslands rather than razing them and turning them into biofuels plantations - even if we continue to use fossil fuels as our main source of energy. That's because those forests and grasslands act as the lungs of the planet - their dense vegetation sucks up far more carbon dioxide and breathes out far more oxygen than any biofuel crop ever could.

When you destroy that wilderness, much of the carbon stored in its living matter is either burned or otherwise oxidized - which is why the destruction of tropical forests accounts for more than 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (more than China produces). Meanwhile, we'd be saving all the creatures that rely on those wildlands for life. The scale is huge: replacing even 10 percent of our gas with biofuels would require 43 percent of U.S. arable land.

Are you listening George Soros? What about you, Center for American Progress? And you, Barack Obama?

If you don't have access to Science, here's the free write-up from The New Scientist (take action on this issue here).

According to the article:

An IP address that belongs to ExxonMobil, the oil giant, is linked to sweeping changes to an entry on the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. An allegation that the company "has not yet paid the $5 billion in spill damages it owes to the 32,000 Alaskan fishermen" was replaced with references to the funds the company has paid out.

As Peter Rothberg pointed out in The Nation's Act Now! Blog, ExxonMobil has been the one oil company to essentially dismiss any kind of investment in renewable energy, so it's not shocking that this backwards looking company wants to whitewash it's past. Thanks to Peter for also linking to ExxposeExxon, a coalition Environmental Action is a proud member of, and a great place to learn more about Exxon's environmental policies.

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.

I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue — recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don’t emanate from Al Qaeda.

“We are now treating the Earth’s atmosphere as an open sewer,” he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.

“I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers,” Mr. Gore said, “and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”

Say it, Al! But it's not just young people who need to do it - everyone needs to join in, starting with you. Shutting down coal plants, blockading palm oil importers like Imperium Renewables and other rainforest destroyers, and stopping work at oil refineries could move the climate debate beyond just personal action and put the spotlight squarely on the big polluters who are the real culprits behind the problem.

This could be Al Gore's Gandhi moment (especially appropriate for a Nobel Peace Prize nominee). It would be great if you (in conjunction with say, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and other civil disobedience-oriented environmental groups) announced a day of civil disobedience to confront polluters - and were the first one to get arrested. You'll find thousands of people (self included) to back you up.

If you're interested in being one of those people, click here to send Al Gore a fax letting him know you're ready to participate in civil disobedience on behalf of the planet.

Outside the beltway? The automotive industry has contributed over $117 million to political candidates in the last 17 years - for those not good at quick math, that's $18,855.76 every day for the last 17 years. How much more inside the beltway could they possibly be?

But, according to the story, "The rally will also feature users of large SUVs and trucks, such as construction workers, kids' sports' teams and volunteers who deliver meals to senior citizens, to talk about why large vehicles are essential." Are they actually suggesting that the bulk of SUVs are used for construction, soccer teams, and meals-on-wheels, as opposed to upper middle class people who just want a big car?

Of course, the industry is blaming us crazy enviros, rather than realizing that people want more fuel efficient cars. Yes, it will cost the industry money to make fuel efficient SUVs and trucks, nobody is denying that. But couldn't it be that since sales are slumping for these huge vehicles, maybe the auto industry could welcome this change?

Of course, these are the same people who insisted that seatbelts and airbags would wreck the industry, actually claiming people aren't concerned about safety (never mind the fact that they now market SUVs as being safer than passenger cars).

But, when your President comes up with ideas like 'Healthy Forests' which would remove all trees from our forests, 'The Clear Skies Initiative', which would have allowed six times as much mercury into the air as currently allowed, and the mother of all Orwellian ideas - 'Clean Coal', you really have to laugh. Big chortling guffaws. Because if you didn't, well, you'd probably cry a little bit.

That being said, I was pretty excited to find this video recently from a comedy troupe in NYC, and I thought you all might enjoy.

First, a word of explanation. The RES (renewable energy standard) says that 15% of U.S. energy needs to come from renewables by 2020. While most groups were pushing for 20%, 15% is pretty amazing, given that we're currently at a little over 3%. Now, who's going to be against this idea? Well, the oil and gas industry of course. And I figured out some interesting things.

- House members that voted against the bill, on average, received $25,803.67 in 2006 from the oil and gas industry

- House members that voted for the bill, on average, received $5,303.76 in 2006 from the oil and gas industry

- House members who were booted out of office, but had received money from oil & gas industry on average received $24,971.78

While I'm not surprised about the fact that people against renewable energy received almost five times as much money from oil and gas as those for it, I'm greatly heartened by the fact that money from the industry appears to be the kiss of death, politically.

Hear that Congress? Stop taking that oil money!

Every year in America, pollution from coal fired power plants cuts short the lives of more than 30,000 people and causes millions of asthma attacks, according to government consultants Abt Associates. It's also responsible for retarding the mental development of thousands of American children: according to EPA scientists, more than one in six children born every year have elevated levels of mercury in their blood, putting them at risk for developmental disorders and slower brain growth.

Worst of all, coal is driving the global climate crisis that is putting billions of people at risk from more extreme weather, spreading infectious disease, and disastrous flooding (not to mention threatening thousands of species with extinction).

Sabrina Valle of The Washington Post is reporting that Soros is one of the biggest investors in growing sugarcane for ethanol in the Brazilian cerrado, "a vast plateau where temperatures range from freezing to steaming hot and bushes and grasslands alternate with forests and the richest variety of flora of all the world's savannas."

That could soon come to an end. In the past four decades, more than half of the Cerrado has been transformed by the encroachment of cattle ranchers and soybean farmers. And now another demand is quickly eating into the landscape: sugarcane, the raw material for Brazilian ethanol.

"Deforestation in the Cerrado is actually happening at a higher rate than it has in the Amazon," said John Buchanan, senior director of business practices for Conservation International in Arlington. "If the actual deforestation rates continue, all the remaining vegetation in the Cerrado could be lost by the year 2030. That would be a huge loss of biodiversity."

The roots of this transformation lie in the worldwide demand for ethanol, recently boosted by a U.S. Senate bill that would mandate the use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, more than six times the capacity of the United States' 115 ethanol refineries. President Bush, who proposed a similar increase in his State of the Union address, visited Brazil and negotiated a deal in March to promote ethanol production in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Now Soros (as well as Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle Group) have joined longtime Big Ag environmental villains Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland in investing in sugarcane expansion on formerly wild land, fueling the loss of 7.4 million acres per year of pristine land. This would ordinarily violate sustainability principles adopted by Goldman Sachs and others (Goldman Sachs's policy, for instance, says that the company "will not
finance any project or initiate loans where the specified use of proceeds would
significantly convert or degrade a critical natural habitat.")

So, they claim they're not contributing to the extinction of the jaguars, blue macaws, and giant armadillos that roam(ed) the savannah because they're growing on fallow land, but that's just a big greenwashing cover.

But environmental groups argue that as soy and sugarcane displace cattle and less lucrative crops, ranchers are moving farther into the unspoiled areas of the Cerrado.

"There are ranchers substituting sugarcane for cattle in the Sao Paulo area, for instance, and displacing cattle to the state of Bahia, both in the Cerrado. So what is the point?" asks Ricardo Machado, author of a study about the Cerrado for Conservation International.

It's a widely documented phenomenon fueling deforestation in Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere: increased demand for land fuels higher commodity prices and expansion into pristine forests.

It's particularly ironic that Soros is working hand in hand with the Bush family by investing $1 billion in growing sugarcane in Brazil. Jeb Bush formed the Interamerican Ethanol Commission in December to promote increased ethanol exports from Latin America, leading, perhaps not coincidentally to President Bush's March deal with Brazilian President Luis Lula Ignacio da Silva.

What really frustrates me more than anything is that these rogue billionaires are destroying these tropical forests for a relatively tiny amount of money, compared to the potential financial value of protecting these lands as carbon sinks. The value of agricultural land on the cerrado ranges from as little as $140 to as high (in areas with the richest land) to $3000. But protecting these areas as carbon sinks could give them a value of up to $6000 per hectare, based on current prices of carbon dioxide that exceed $20 per ton on European markets.

Of course, that would require governments to come together to allow countries and polluters to get greenhouse gas reduction credit for protecting intact ecosystems as carbon sinks, as I recently outlined with Bill Powers in a New York Times op-ed. But there's increasing support for the idea, and as these financiers destroy the forests to create agriculture, they're also destroying much greater potential returns for themselves.

I guess being a rogue billionaire doesn't make you a smart billionaire.

P.S. I've set up an action alert on my website where you can contact George Soros and ask him to withdraw from this project and invest instead in conservation; click here to send him a note. Soros has actually done a tremendous amount of good in his long career, from fighting Soviet tyranny to fighting George Bush, so I think a bit of media scrutiny combined with a grassroots outcry could convince him to align his business practices with his principles and history of good work.

That's right. Environmental Action staff and activists got up at 4AM on Tuesday to meet up with Roker & co. to get the message out on national television. You can see one of the screen shots below, and to watch the video, click here.

Kudos to the NY crew, and 'mad props' to Sean who took a brochure on energy independence. Maybe in a few months we'll hear Kingston perform, 'Get Up, Stand Up (for clean energy)'

Richardson was spurred to act when a federal wildlife agent, acting under the auspices of the Bush administration policy, on July 5 shot and killed a female wolf pack leader in New Mexico (one of only about 55 mature wolves still alive in the wild in New Mexico).

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bush administration sharpshooter pointed his gun at a New Mexico state biologist who objected to his shooting the wolf before he slaughtered the animal.

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.

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.

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'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?