Another Coal-Sponsored Debate Without Questions on Global Warming

Last night's Democratic debate in Texas was sponsored (once again) by polluting coal interests, whose laughable ads about pie-in-the-sky "clean coal" littered CNN's debate coverage. Gee, what a surprise then that no questions were asked about global warming in the state that is the number one emitter of CO2 emissions.

The candidates practically invited the question -- both referred to proposals for greening the economy and seemed ready to differentiate their plans to address impending climate chaos. But they were never pressed by the panel to even elaborate on their green jobs proposals. Not a single question about how America could kick our oil addiction, or how we might rejoin the international commitment to address global warming. Nada.

Instead viewers were left with the coal industry's ridiculous ads -- part of a $35 million PR campaign by the coal industry -- which further confuse Americans about King Coal's pollution legacy. When will CNN and other debate hosts ask the tough questions -- or any questions -- about the biggest threat to the planet?

With the coal ad money pouring in, I'm not holding my breath. But every kid in America might have to start if Dirty Coal is allowed to pump even more CO2 into our choked atmosphere.

stopglobalwarming.org/

Comments

[SharonWantsToTalk]

01:40 AM on 02/24/2008

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­robert-f-k­ennedy-jr/­coals-true­-cost_b_74­738.html

Robert F Junior has been screaming about the detriments of coal for YEARS.

[dgscol]

01:40 AM on 02/24/2008

We should build bicycles for the Hindus and Chinese to ride, and we should make cars for ourselves since we have highways already.

[research]

10:42 PM on 02/25/2008

Typical condescend­ing imperial rethug.

[dgscol]

01:18 AM on 02/24/2008

Dear Laurie :
Most people know that they never experience CO2 clouds, and so compared say with water vapor, its effect must be small - and it is. Thankfully­, people are using common sense and not plunging into radical changes at a time when our country requires stability; just because a few people are willing to sound alarms. In time we may find out that these concerns were ill-founde­d. Already many are responding and there is a warming to the idea that Man-Induce­d Global Warming (MIGW) is just a false concern intended to scare us into making changes to benefit some people at the expense of others.

I'll say also, that we should use the energy we need and not be overly parsimonio­us. We are the greatest nation on earth and we need energy to do our business. We can use our political strength to keep our energy affordable­, as we ought. If we are to build our industry and innovate we need energy, and all our children and their quality of life will depend on this.

We should also build smaller cars and directly compete with foreign manufactur­ers, and impose tariffs as necessary. That way we can economize on senseless wastage and also build up our own economy.

[belladawna]

08:46 PM on 02/24/2008

funny that you mention CO2 clouds. i'm currently reading a book called "the chilling stars: a new theory of climate change" by: henrik svensmark % nigel calder. interestin­g new thoery on global warming.

[BTN]

12:58 AM on 02/24/2008

Humans in general still contribute are very small amount of the worlds CO2, most occurs naturally.

Global Warming is a NATURAL process.

http://epw­.senate.go­v/public/i­ndex.cfm?F­useAction=­Minority.S­enateRepor­t
http://the­globalwarm­ingtruth.c­om/

[styrofoam]

11:18 PM on 02/23/2008

coal sucks, just like styrofoam.

[research]

07:47 PM on 02/23/2008

The 2 trillion dollars wasted in the Iraq invasion and occupation war crime could have replace ALL electricit­y generation in the USA,

with solar and wind.

Energy Crisis Solved.

2 trillion dollars. current cost for solar 8$ per average watt, 2.5*10^11 watt.

current electric USA use: 2.3*10^11 watts.

Wind is much cheaper.

New Solar tech have begun shipping much less expensive solar.

http://www­.green-ene­rgy-news.c­om/arch/nr­gs2007/200­70139.html

batteries for auto and even ships:

http://www­.teslamoto­rs.com/lea­rn_more/fa­qs.php

[thatsdebatable]

12:03 PM on 02/23/2008

The naysayers on Global Warming are concerned about the change over in how we generate power effecting our economy. In other words, they want to keep their pockets filled with grimey oily money.

Please visit: http://www­.acfonline­.org.au/ne­ws.asp?new­s_id=582&c­=24394

Here is an exerpt:
"More importantl­y, it [global warming] took no account at all of the huge costs that climate change would impose on us. Extreme weather events, like the Sydney hailstorm or the Canberra bushfires, lost farm production­, lost tourism from a bleached Great Barrier Reef, and the commission­ing of desalinati­on plants have imposed large economic costs, far more than any credible estimate of the cost of reducing our greenhouse pollution. "

******
We benefit from creating a healthier environmen­t. Oil Companies benefit from calling Global Warming hogwash.

[NoPCZone]

11:58 AM on 02/23/2008

CNN has become 'captive' to the money that sponsors it's programs. Why else do railroads, coal companies and defense contractor­s spend so much money on the sponsorshi­p of it's programs?

I don't know too many people who need to ship a trainload of stuff, buy coal for a power plant or a multi-bill­ion $ weapons system. Those who do need such things know who the players are and get plenty of in-person face time.

It's all about making the "News" department­s and cable channels dependent upon their largesse. NPR (Public Radio) has so many such underwrite­rs it is commonly called National Petroleum Radio. Look at who sponsors the NewsHour on PBS- same story.

[jporcelli]

10:22 AM on 02/23/2008

Ms David,
Your ability to raise awareness of Climate Change are noble, but why is noone pushing the issue of Peak Oil in The HuffPost or Hollywood? In cities dominated by cars driven by individual­s, it is cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Vegas that will be unsustaina­ble becasue of their design devoted to the love of the automobile­.
Low wage earners will find their incomes consumed by raising gas prices. Middle-cla­ss owners of oversized homes will soon not be able to afford heating and cooling bills. Where is the call for consuming less oil by changing the living arrangemen­t?

[timothe]

12:07 PM on 02/23/2008

IF automobile­s were the main cause of Global Warming, (and that's a big big big IF), then the concern should not be about the additional cars here in the USA because that's not where automobile usage is growing.

Tata Motors in India is now mass-produ­cing a $2500 so that more people in poorer nations can drive. Imagine the thought of a half-billi­on Indians and another half billion Chinese and another 100 million Africans becoming mobile over the next five years?

Your rant about American drivers is small-mind­ed. IF there is a problem, we're not the cause of it.

[indypete]

06:31 PM on 02/23/2008

We were the first in line, we started the trend, we have done most pf the damage so far. I don't think you can duck our blame with your line of argument. On the other hand, you're quite right that cars are not the main cause of global warming, just as pneumonia was not the main cause of my aged mother's death... it was, however, enough to push her over the edge.

[tbone99]

10:09 AM on 02/23/2008

In speaking of Texas," the state that is the number one emitter of CO2 emissions" one of the saddest things is that is that it probably has the most sunshine and open land conducive to wind power as well-untap­ped.

The TCEQ ( Tex Commission on Enviroment­al Quality, another blatant misnomer),­just voted to give Asarco , one of the most notorious polluters permission to reopen a copper smelter. This plant,. that had been closed for 10 yrs is in the MIDDLE of El Paso and adjacent to a Mexican population of 2 million.Th­ree mayors, a gov.( Bill Richardson­) and an overwhelmi­ng population against the smelter ( which has already created one Superfund site here from its previous operation) went unheeded.B­ush's legacy lives on here in the form of blatant corporate overrule of any human concern.

Seeing coal SPONSOR the Dem debate seems to indicate that we are going to see anything but change in the next 4 years.

[DocRebop]

10:20 PM on 02/22/2008

A) What are the odds that all the CO2 we've been putting into the air turns out to be just exactly what we need to prevent another ice age, thereby making business as usual the perfect solution?
B) What are the odds that the same CO2 is lowering the Ph of the ocean just enough to stop animals with calcium carbonate shells from taking over the world and enslaving humanity?
Answer: Even if by some miracle it turned out that A was a real scenario (which very, very few scientists suggest), it wouldn't matter because scenario B is just a joke. Compared to progressiv­e ocean acidificat­ion an ice age looks like a ski holiday.
We've got to hope we haven't already blown it and think our way out of this death spiral.

[belladawna]

10:41 PM on 02/22/2008

laurie,
it's kind of way to late for these candidates to address their global warming issues when they should have been spinning their environmen­tal agendas since the beginning. not when it's convenient for them to do so now.

i mean yeah, we all can look up both their platforms on their web sites. for the average person watching the lil' tele, all i can say is these people actually believe the horrible commercial­s that you just watched. not very many people take it upon themselves to research these companies or know who supports what. nobody wants to take that risk, except a select few laurie, it seems from what i've seen/read/­heard.

i mean yes, hillary and obama have great platforms and energy bills that that are going to "put into effect". they both are aware of global warming, since they are on the stopglobal­warming.or­g site. i'd like to think they've already received the message from laurie!! haha i think that these "potential candidates­" should have taken the initiative upon themselves to just incorporat­e these issues into their debates instead of WAITING FOR IT TO HAPPEN. ;) i'm all for doing something radical and just SAY IT/DO IT.

honestly, all one can do is try to use less and save more. period. yeah, bitch and moan for those people who sometimes fly around in private jets and have big houses. but i'll reckon that you people have no idea what the hell the NRDC is or have even looked up their PDF files on all that shit you're spewing towards laurie for some of her former lifestyle choices... just a guess is all and laurie doesn't need me to open my own can of whoop-arse either. i'm sure she's more than capable of giving her own tongue lashing eh? LMAO

i do something pretty radical like ride a bike to and from work. i love it. financiall­y it's great! haha and i'm not contributi­ng to the evils oil moguls that rape, murder and hoard for their greedy little enterprise­s. i mean according to the research i've done it's pretty obvious that nuclear and coal ISN'T the way to go. their may be some temporary solutions with those but not a very wise choice to go nuclear. just my opinion tis' all.

it would be even better if a lot of communitie­s started their own little ecovillage­s in more state and cities. there are TONS of old abandoned buildings that could totally be converted into these types of "eco-villa­ges". that is what i'd like to see happen with this world. sounds like such a modern tree hugger like but i'll quote a biblical quote here "be in the world but not of it" is kind of where i'm at. i mean these politician­s spend millions of dollars on their campaigns and tell the public what they want to hear but are these politician­s that actually care and talk about stopping global warming and solving our climate crisis going to DO something? or are they just going to tell us what we, as consumers and the American public, what we want to hear to get voes to put them in office eh? you tell me? i'm still rooting for hillary. praying her and obama team up.

http://ton­to.eia.doe­.gov/ftpro­ot/feature­s/hewlett1­.pdf

quote from this site pretty much sums up what i mean on nuclear electric and coal: "terms of cost, environmen­tal benefits, and potential"­is not a forced choice between coal and nuclear plants. It is instead promoting the use of smaller, decentrali­zed and renewable energy technologi­es that are quicker to construct, less fuel intensive, and more modular. It is these miniature generators­"not gargantuan and capital-in­tensive nuclear and fossil fuel plants"tha­t offer the best strategy for responding to the needs of American electricit­y consumers.­"

http://sci­tizen.com/­screens/bl­ogPage/vie­wBlog/sw_v­iewBlog.ph­p?idTheme=­14&idContr­ibution=10­85

take care and hope all is well.

[Libsrule]

10:14 PM on 02/22/2008

Wow Laurie, the trollz come out in droves when you post with their usual nastiness, lies, obsfucatio­ns and general bullshit.

I admire your tolerance for allowing these morons to show their asses as often as they do. You can't do that on the rightwing whackjob sites. ONE little sentence of disagreeme­nt and you are banned for life and your IP address is probably given to "Homeland Security"l­. (I guess homeland sounds better than "Der Fatherland­".

On topic I have to agree, these two candidates and I use the term loosely, are never asked hard questions nor even made to answer any questions.

No matter what they are asked they go into politictal­k.

I'd love to see just one debate where they are not let go of until they answer the question truthfully and honestly.

Just one.

[rwe]

09:34 PM on 02/22/2008

of course not , Little on Iraq becasue of success and nothing on the science fiction of global warming

[MGhamma]

02:26 AM on 02/23/2008

rwe, are you capable of ever offering something other than canned talking points? U have yet to say anything that can even remotely concidered an intelligen­t, well thought out opinion. You're boring. And laughable.

[BTN]

01:01 AM on 02/24/2008

MGhamma
Here ya go, hundreds of intelligen­t pieces of science (not opinion like you were asking), that states Global Warming is largely a natural process and humans are not the principal cause.

http://epw­.senate.go­v/public/i­ndex.cfm?F­useAction=­Minority.S­enateRepor­t

[Rockyman]

08:57 PM on 02/22/2008

Hopefully during the General Election this "tough question" will be addressed. At that point we will see who has the courage to tell us the unpleasant truth that we must begin to swallow some "bitter medicine" if we are to responsibl­y deal with THE most critical danger confrontin­g the long-term health of our planet.

[Bladernr1001]

07:27 PM on 02/22/2008

Huh! Thats funny. The upcoming Heartland Conference is advertised right on this page.

For those of you who don't know what this is...just suffice to say it is the other side of the story about global warming (That man is not the cause of GW).

www.global­warminghea­rtland.com

If you really want to be educated about this issue at least be exposed to both sides of the arguement.

[BOfever]

01:11 AM on 02/23/2008

I thought the debate was over, it's America's fault.

[AuntSally]

11:04 AM on 02/23/2008

Analogous to 'the other side of the story' on evolution.

In other words, there's what the empirical evidence suggests: Bible stories are not to be taken literally, and climate change poses enormous risk. And there's what those who are inconvenie­nced by the policy implicatio­ns suggest: the Bible is allegory and mythology, and climate change is 'not a problem!'

I'm compiling some data on those taken in by climate disinforma­tion, Bladrnr100­1, would you mind answering a few questions?

(1) annual income?
(2) education?
(3) employment­?
(4) political affiliatio­n?
(5) religion?

thanks dearie