I’m not sure what it is about these ads that have captured the nation’s imagination; John McCain has his own version of it, and, of course, it inspired scores of parodies on YouTube and among late-night talk show comedians.

Still, I wonder if the candidates will get around to making one of these ads about the environment.

It’d be really easy to do, actually. All you need is a ringing phone…and no one to answer it.

That’s because the environment has somehow become a non-issue during this campaign season. All three candidates have fairly progressive views when it comes to addressing climate change, and they all tout the benefits of weening ourselves off foreign oil, so we’ve basically been told by the media that there’s nothing more to discuss on the topic.

The only problem is that voters WANT to discuss it.

According to a recent Gallup poll:

Americans continue to say (by a seven percentage-point margin, 49% to 42%) protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth.

In all fairness, the story goes on to say that the gap between those favoring the environment over the economy is closing rapidly. Of course, some of us happen to think that the two are not mutually exclusive, but that’s a topic for another day.

With that much support for environmental issues, you would think that the media would respond. Quite the contrary. Check out this depressing content analysis conducted by the League of Conservation Voters:

Total for 5 Top Political Reporters* updated 2/18/2008

Number of Interviews & Debates: 190
Number of Questions: 3,201
Questions That Mention Global Warming: 8
Global Warming Related Questions: 29

*(CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s Tim Russert, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Bob Schieffer, and FOX News’s Chris Wallace)

As a graduate student in journalism, I’m inclined to say that this is a classic case of The Agenda-Setting Theory, which basically states that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but what to think about (we can end with prepositions in journalism…)

Can that really be the case? Is the media a monolithic beast with a well-planned agenda? Yes and no. There may not be a singular voice dictating what subjects get covered, but there clearly is a follow-the-mob mentality when it comes to chasing stories.

So while the mainstream media is busy focusing on the sermons of a Chicago preacher who isn’t even running for president, or whether some secret society of superdelegates will ultimately influence the nomination, we’re missing valuable opportunities to discuss the differences in the candidates’ environmental platforms. How exactly will they create “green” jobs? How will they interact with the rest of the world on climate change protocols? What sort of incentives will they offer for sustainable construction, renewable energy, hybrid cars?

How we get the mainstream media back on point is, of course, the $64,000 question. It starts with confronting outlets directly with this lack of environment-related campaign coverage. Emails to talking heads, newspapers, TV stations, radio hosts…believe me, if all it took was an email campaign to keep “Jericho” on the air, they’ll definitely listen to us.

But keep in mind that the media is rarely proactive, it’s mostly reactive, so in many ways this is as much a problem caused by the candidates as it is by the media. If we really want to improve coverage, we must demand that our candidates address the issue more frequently and with more depth. The more they address it, the more media will have to cover it.

Yes, the three candidates have fairly similar views on the major environmental themes, but there are distinct differences. We, as voters, deserve to have easy access to those differences.

Besides, I’ll be damned if the best discussion over climate change this election comes from an animated snow man during the YouTube debate.

illustration courtesy of Roberto Rizzato

No, I’m not talking about the demon-possessed hot rods (I think we all saw that coming). I’m talking about America’s zombie-like loyalty to a certain cash crop — one that has turned our entire nation into the children of the corn.

Lately, of course, you can’t watch, read, or listen to the news without someone touting the benefits of corn ethanol and how it’s the key to leading us on a path of energy independence.

There might be a *cough* kernel of truth to that argument, but… (sorry, I suffer from a cousin of Tourette’s that requires me to uncontrollably shout out useless puns)…

Seriously, corn is not the answer. It’s not even a major part of the answer. In fact, it’s a major part of the problem.

What do I mean? Well, lend me your *cough* ear (jeez, the medication is wearing off quicker)…

Corn ethanol was meant to be a supplement for crude oil. As such, logic would have you believe that as demand for oil went down, so too would its price. But, if anything, prices of the two have escalated hand in hand:

Crude oil has more than tripled in price from the $30-per-barrel figure of March 2004. Corn prices this month have averaged slightly less than double the $2.75-per- bushel average of March 2004.

The bigger problem with this scenario is that higher corn prices mean higher overall food prices. Corn, after all, is a staple of the diet fed to livestock, and so any sharp rise in the price of corn will have a dramatic effect on meat and poultry prices; add to that the fact that practically every mainstream commercial food product contains some amount of high-fructose corn syrup — and that corn is quickly gaining popularity as a replacement for petroleum-based plastics, and it’s easy to see why everyone’s grocery bills are going through the roof.

People like us, fortunate enough to be able to *cough* stomach these higher grocery prices, will find a way to adapt — we’ll cut back on the amount we buy, we’ll look for cheaper solutions. In the U.S., food prices account for only about 10 percent of the average family’s budget. It’ll make things tougher, but that’s not the problem.

The problem is that food prices are so high now that developing and poorer countries are having a much harder time feeding their people. In many developing countries, for example, food prices take up roughly 70 percent of that average family budget.

Is there a direct link between our current corn craze and global hunger? Indian Finance Minister P. Chidambaram thinks so:

Citing the US as an example, he said nearly 20% of corn goes to making bio fuels.

Mr Chidambaram said there was now a climate of food insecurity

“It is a sign of the lopsided priorities of certain countries that they will resort to measures that will produce fuel at a cheaper cost in order to meet the transport requirements of a section of their population,” Mr Chidambaram said.

He said the pursuit of such policies at a time when many in the world could barely afford to eat was “outrageous and… must be condemned”.

Granted, the rising price of corn is not the only culprit for rising food costs and I’m not saying we should do away with all corn ethanol.

But let’s be reasonable, you don’t replace one dictator (oil) with another (corn). There is no monolithic solution to our energy needs, in fact it’s the exact opposite: we need a variety of smaller-scale alternatives. Moreover, we need to emphasize biofuels that are native to a particular area, so switchgrass and algae should be just as much at the center of this discussion. Finally, it means we need to cut back on government subsidies for corn — how about directing those incentives toward encouraging other less-damaging alternative fuels?

So the next time some local politician spouts a *cough* corn pone notion that ethanol is our eco-savior, just remember that the argument isn’t so cut-and-dry, and that how we decide to pursue our energy needs here can have dramatic consequences all over the globe.

Now, imagine that, I managed to get through this entire post without one reference to being *cough* corny! (uh-oh, time for more medication…)

Photo courtesy of 0595

We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

Okay, so maybe the above David Bowie lyric was about alien invasion and the impending end of humankind as we know it, but it’s been playing on a loop inside my head ever since Wednesday, when we “celebrated” the fifth anniversary of our war in Iraq.

Five years. My brain definitely hurts a lot.

While the current administration will have us believe that the surge is working and that stability has returned to once volatile regions, the truth is probably closer to a “whack-a-mole” strategy that shows no signs of leading to a peaceful resolution for this ongoing nightmare.

A majority of Americans now say this war was a mistake, and we continue to hear reports—be it from the peripheries—of civilian lives lost, soldiers’ lives lost, soldiers injured, vets suffering from PTSD, tax dollars spent, etc. Still, perhaps one of the greatest casualties of this war gets very little mention.

I’m speaking, of course, of the environment.

The war in Iraq has proven to be quite damaging on the fragile ecosystem of arbitrary borders known officially as Iraq—and therefore equally damaging to the fragile ecosystem of arbitrarily-drawn nations known as Planet Earth.

Or, in keeping with my Bowie theme: “Planet Earth is blue and there’s nothing I can do…”
(Thanks for indulging, but I digress…)

Back in 2003, a handful of environmental activists, along with a few international media outlets, outlined the possible environmental destruction likely to occur as a result of this war. Of course, even they couldn’t predict how drawn out and chaotic the ensuing occupation would be, but they did provide us with some context nonetheless.

Peter Zahler of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned at the time that post-war environmental problems would be more dangerous than the initial shock-and-awe bombing:

“In a short-term war like this one,” said Zahler, “the major threats environmentally are mostly chemical.” With fewer than 10 oil wells ignited in Iraq and just a few of those still burning, Zahler speculates that the major remaining risks are “blown-up plants of any kind, transformers, and oil supply depots.” Among the possible dangers are carcinogenic PCBs leaking from the transformers or ammonia seeping out of damaged fertilizer plants.

Also threatening, Zahler and other experts said, is depleted uranium, a toxic and radioactive heavy metal used by U.S. and British forces as munitions to pierce tank armor and as part of the tanks themselves.

These environmental consequences go far beyond the toll they take on human lives. Take, for instance the way the previous Gulf War altered the behavior of wild life, most notably observed through bird migration patterns:

Iraq is one of the transit spots for migrant birds between African and European continents. Every spring and autumn see groups of migrant birds migrate over the land and sky here. The great expanse of marshland and wetland in the south of Iraq proves to be one of the natural sanctuaries for tens of thousands of water birds in west Asia. However, the merciless fire of war is now swallowing the paradise of birds. According to statistics, over 40 species of rare water birds, crustaceans and mammals extirpated on the land of Iraq ever since the Gulf War in 1991.

The real problem, as these stories point out, is that no proper, detailed assessment has been done to give us a current analysis of environmental damage caused by this war. Like much of the rest of the war planning, we have no idea what’s really going on, and yet we’re asked to stay the course.

Of course, underlying this entire discussion is the fact that, whether we care to admit it or not, one of the driving forces behind this war is the desire to secure access to Iraq’s tremendous oil reserves, which place it second only to Saudi Arabia. By the way, check out Rummy’s rationale at the time:

“We don’t take our forces and go around the world and try to take other people’s real estate or other people’s resources, their oil. That’s just not what the United States does,” he said. “We never have, and we never will. That’s not how democracies behave.”

Nothing to see here, kids, don’t pay attention to the little man behind the curtain…

Look, I know we’re stuck there for a while … probably a long while. But as Americans, we owe it to ourselves to understand what’s being done in our name—not just to the Iraqi people, to our soldiers, and to our wallets, but what’s being done to our global environment. Any war that not only causes such environmental damage but has an end goal of acquiring an energy source that quickly is running out is not only short-sighted and selfish, but downright self-destructive.

Meanwhile, I can only hope that I don’t have to revisit this theme in another five years. I’m ready for the Spiders from Mars to take me away…

Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”

Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.

All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?

Well, the dirty little secret is that without NAFTA America would no longer have a special deal with Canadian oil, which currently makes up roughly eight percent of annual U.S. oil consumption.

So — as sad as it is — breaking off the deal is itself a deal-breaker for both Democratic candidates, and, of course, for John McCain too. And, once again, our dependence on oil has led us into unsound policy.

Still, at least the Democratic candidates insist they will call for a restructuring of NAFTA—for both labor and environmental reasons.

We need to hold them to that promise.

It might provide a great opportunity to emphasize green practices. That means getting all three nations on board to create stricter—and enforceable—regulations; it means setting up a carbon-credit program between the three countries to help offset emissions of greenhouse gases; it means requiring all three nations to invest a substantial amount toward the development of renewable energy sources.

In other words use NAFTA to help put the three countries on the cutting-edge of the green movement. Make something positive out of a negative.

It looks like we’ll be stuck with NAFTA for the near future and that’s certainly bad news the way the agreement is currently structured. Any treaty that prolongs the short-sighted need to maintain our current levels of oil consumption, while neglecting to use the best alternative resources at the disposal of all three nations, is not just drinking our milkshake — it’s throwing it down the drain!

You get my point.

Flag artwork courtesy of illegalillegals

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.

Call it “In Coal Blood,” if you will (sorry…if you hear a churning noise under your feet it’s probably just Mr. Capote spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken).

Back in October, Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, rejected the air permits for the company’s proposed pair of 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants, citing the devastating impact emissions from carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—would have on the environment.

In other words, it was the first time a proposed power plant had been rejected by using a “global warming” defense. This defense certainly wasn’t far-fetched. After all, the proposed plants would spew some 11 million tons of CO2 annually, making them the largest new source of such emissions in the nation.

But, of course, the battle didn’t end there.

Sunflower Electric and its supporters in the state legislature continue to try and ram this project down our throats. They insist it is needed to meet rising energy demands in western Kansas; they also argue that it will lead to much-needed economic development in one of the poorest regions of the state.

Or as Greg Brady look-alike Sen. Sam Brownback recently put it:

“Expansion of the Sunflower facility would have created 2,000 jobs during construction and an additional 400 permanent jobs and billions of dollars in economic development.”

Two thousand temporary jobs and 400 permanent ones—is that all we get for destroying the planet? Well, heck, throw in 30 pieces of silver and you got yourself a deal!

Then again, I’m sure Brownback’s job estimates are low. After all, several other jobs might be created as a result of this expansion, namely hospital receptionists, pulmonary specialists, insurance claims adjusters…

Moreover, proponents also fail to emphasize that Kansans will only receive about 10 percent of the energy generated from the plants; the remaining 90 percent will be shipped off to Colorado and Texas. They conveniently overlook the fact that all of the waste—namely mercury dumped in the water—will remain right here in Kansas.

Perhaps that, too, will create more jobs: water inspectors, Hazmat workers, not to mention the voluntary citizen soldiers needed to fight off the giant mutant fish that will threaten to take over Kansas by 2011.

Still, even Sammy B. realizes that coal alone is not the answer:

“The new coal plants would be part of an integrated bioenergy center that would have significant benefits for the environment. For example, much of the carbon produced by the coal plants would be captured and used to grow algae, which would be crushed to make biodiesel. Ethanol, another renewable fuel, would be produced onsite by using methane gas from livestock facilities.”

So let me get this straight: we only need 10 percent of the energy a plant like this would generate, and we know that alternative methods (proposed only as supplemental energy) are available, and yet we want to go ahead and produce far more than we need simply so a corporation can cut a deal with two other states, all while destroying our own water. Sounds like a plan to me!

Let’s be honest here, the plant is not about meeting surging energy demands; it’s about making money. We could meet the energy demands with a combination of alternative methods that, while not perfect, would leave a far smaller carbon footprint—I mean, Brownback didn’t even mention wind energy, which capitalizes on one of our state’s greatest natural resources.

But all of that is a hard sell to the folks of western Kansas. Times are hard in rural America.

We can—and should—argue that the coal plants are not in the best interest of the folks out west, but we need to do more than simply shoot down the proposal. We need to offer them something concrete in its place. What that entails exactly is beyond my tiny brain, but I imagine it would require bringing politicians, environmentalists, alternative energy experts, and western Kansans together to show that alternative energy and jobs can be had through far less damaging means—and that the two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive.

I hope that Holcomb eventually shakes off its reputation as the setting for one of the most brutal crimes depicted in American literature. Here’s to hoping it comes to represent the small town of the future—one that simultaneously respects the environment and the needs of its residents.

There. I think I finally made Mr. Capote stop spinning.