Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Day 1 DNC: The ‘Clean Coal’ lie is everywhere

By Todd Spencer | 08.25.08 | 11:42 pm
Logo from America's Power website

Logo from America's Power Web site

After a ride on the light rail system that puts Detroit and Grand Rapids to shame, I stepped off the car originating in the suburbs into the festive bedlam downtown Denver. Imagine a Tigers game crowd and an Ann Arbor Art Fair crowd all trying to get to the stadium and buy some art on a stick before the first inning.

On the circus-like street I noticed a camera crew focusing their lens on a clean-cut young man with a big Top 40 radio voice dressed in a “clean coal” golf shirt.

This Ryan Seacrest wannabe making a buck anyway he can is on the payroll of a consortium of big coal companies, who have a propaganda Web site and PR campaign called americaspower.org.

Undoubtedly you’ve seen its TV ads.

Especially if you ever surfed in the direction of CNN during the primary coverage of last winter and this spring: the ones promoting clean coal as the answer to the energy crisis, even though it doesn’t exist and might never. Even though coal plants emit a third of the world’s greenhouse gases. Even though a shift to true clean energy like wind and solar and renewable biodiesel is necessary and ultimately inevitable for our survival as a species on earth.

While writing this report, I saw two “clean coal” ads on CNN.

Coal companies are huge sponsors of Barack Obama and of the Democratic National Convention. Lots of outdoor advertising here, and in Boulder, according to a kid I just spoke with from musicfordemocracy.org who got into town three days ago.

Michigan Messenger and the kid weren’t the only ones a little cockeyed about the coal industry’s ubiquitous presence here and their influence with the Democrats.

DailyKos editors met this morning with representatives of the coal industry, and the coal Web site even put up an item about it. A risky and/or cocky move. Or were they handing out money and know something we don’t. Ha ha. Sort of.

Further, what do they already know about Michelle Obama’s speech tonight? Check this out, from the clean coal Web site:

On this very stage later tonight, we’ll hear from Michelle Obama.

As she has crossed America on the campaign trail, I’m sure that she has met lots of families who are struggling to pay higher energy costs. It will be interesting to see if she includes any of the stories of those folks in her speech tonight.

Over the next few days, many big names will take the podium.

What will they say about energy policy? Will they talk about how America’s growing energy demands plays a part in how we address the climate change issue? Will they talk about how to ensure a reliable, affordable energy supply?

We hope so!

CNN is being piped into the “Big Tent” — a progressive netroots headquarters down the street from the convention center, which is where I’m writing this.

This morning I attended a talk here called “Now or Never — Climate Solutions” moderated by a man well-read in my household, Lester Brown.

This is not the story that I will try to save the world with. I will not try to scare you into a depression with statistics — and there are endless amounts of those — about disappearing water, disappearing ozone, disappearing species, the dying of the oceans and what will eventually be the collapse of human society if we don’t act now — not after coal companies have had their final windfall — but right now, to cut our carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2020.

But what I will do now is leave you with a quote from one of the panelists, David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College in Ohio.

There was only time for one question when the session was done.

An audience member asked what had changed in American politics since the bipartisan efforts in the late ’60s and early ’70s to protect the environment such as the Clean Air Act and the Nixon-signed Endangered Species Act currently under attack by George Bush. Why are things so different now and why have those regulations all been eroded over time?

Orr said, “The two biggest reasons why are money in politics and media consolidation.”

So here we are. At the Democratic National Convention, and the coal industry has financed it. And the corporate cable news network covering the event is in bed with the same dirty money.

And so it is.

Comments

  • ebrayton

    I wouldn't hang my hat on Lester Brown, he's exactly the kind of screeching alarmist that discredits genuine environmentalism. I remember quoting Brown while a high school debater in the early 80s predicting the imminent demise of virtually everything (and seeing almost identical quotes from the early 70s predicting the same thing). Brown has been predicting for decades that we're about to run out of practically every metal being mined as well as out of water, oil and probably air too. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be concerned about using too many resources or about pollution, of course; that would be equal parts absurd and dangerous. Rational environmentalism is plenty compelling on its own, but the kind of Chicken Little pronouncements that Brown has been making for decades now only undermines the credibility of environmentalism in general.

    • tspencer

      Since 1970, we've experienced continuous degradation including ozone layer depletion and acid rain in the '80s, global warming in the '90s and now dead zones in the oceans in the '00s. The slide continues not only unabated, but accelerated, as population grows, the earth heats and regulation of industrial polluters is repealed by our elected officials.

      Saying that Lester Brown (and all the United Nations climatologists who agree with him) are to be ignored about the need to reduce our footprint on the planet because the world didn't totally collapse in 1990, is a strange argument.

      Your distaste for emotion in the delivery of scientific facts in no way lessens the validity of those facts.

      In the history of the planet, science has determined that the normal range of carbon in the atmosphere is between 180-300 parts per million. A panelist up on stage with Lester Brown announced, quite dryly in fact, it's 387, and rising every two years.

      If a man cries, screams and rants factual information such as the statistic mentioned above, as you suggest Brown has “for decades,” you might find that distasteful or it might make you feel uncomfortable. The fact, no matter how delivered, remains a fact.

      Alarmism is not our enemy. Pollution is. And when there's a fire, you sound the alarm. It's not emotional to do so. It's logical.

      • ebrayton

        Todd Spencer wrote:

        Saying that Lester Brown (and all the United Nations climatologists who agree with him) are to be ignored about the need to reduce our footprint on the planet because the world didn't totally collapse in 1990, is a strange argument.

        I didn't say that. In fact, I explicitly said (and strongly believe) that we must take the problems of environmental degradation and overuse of resources very seriously. The problem with Brown, in my view, is that his breathless pronouncements of imminent collapse, which he has been making year after year for decades now, cause people not to take those problems seriously when his predictions of the demise of the species don't occur when he says they're going to. I remember using quotes from him in debate from the early 70s predicting the collapse of most of the world's ecosystem within a staggeringly short period of time. When those exaggerated claims turn out to be false, it undermines the credibility of those who are making more reasonable environmental claims. If you're going to continually claim, year after year, that we are on the brink of an immediate collapse in food supplies, for example, and year after year that collapse doesn't happen, it doesn't take long to become Chicken Little or the boy who cried wolf. He's not wrong to push us all to conserve and to adopt policies that reduce environmental degradation; he's wrong for continually exaggerating the extent and immediacy of every possible threat. That kind of alarmism IS the enemy of genuine environmentalism because it undermines the credible arguments being made by non-alarmists.

  • ebrayton

    And let me add that I agree with you on “clean coal.” It should be called “slightly less dirty but still enormously polluting coal.”

  • tspencer

    Here's more on “clean coal” at the DNC from DailyKos.

  • moe33

    It's disgraceful how extensively the coal industry has been allowed to infiltrate the convention this year… but not particularly surprising. While Republicans receive the majority of contributions from the coal lobby, this year's Dems have taken 32% of the total–a level not seen since 1994. Clearly, ties between Democrats and King Coal are strengthening, despite the rhetoric.

    The numbers are from http://www.opensecrets.org, and there's another website that provides incredibly valuable stats on specific members and specific donor corporations–www.followthecoalmoney.org (Oil Change USA and Appalachian Voices). It then correlates that with how members have voted on pertinent legislation. It's interactive, and kind of fun :)

  • moe33

    It's disgraceful how extensively the coal industry has been allowed to infiltrate the convention this year… but not particularly surprising. While Republicans receive the majority of contributions from the coal lobby, this year's Dems have taken 32% of the total–a level not seen since 1994. Clearly, ties between Democrats and King Coal are strengthening, despite the rhetoric.

    The numbers are from http://www.opensecrets.org, and there's another website that provides incredibly valuable stats on specific members and specific donor corporations–www.followthecoalmoney.org (Oil Change USA and Appalachian Voices). It then correlates that with how members have voted on pertinent legislation. It's interactive, and kind of fun :)

  • moe33

    It's disgraceful how extensively the coal industry has been allowed to infiltrate the convention this year… but not particularly surprising. While Republicans receive the majority of contributions from the coal lobby, this year's Dems have taken 32% of the total–a level not seen since 1994. Clearly, ties between Democrats and King Coal are strengthening, despite the rhetoric.

    The numbers are from http://www.opensecrets.org, and there's another website that provides incredibly valuable stats on specific members and specific donor corporations–www.followthecoalmoney.org (Oil Change USA and Appalachian Voices). It then correlates that with how members have voted on pertinent legislation. It's interactive, and kind of fun :)