be a good idea.

Wouldn't his time be better spend campaigning or doing Earth stuff in the US, rather than another country?  Makes more sense to plant trees in NH, IOWA, NEVADA, OREGON, etc than go to Brazil.

email form the Edwards camapign:

The John Edwards community has been on the forefront of the effort to stop global warming. This weekend could be a watershed moment in that effort worldwide, and we have a key role to play.

As you've probably heard, Saturday's "Live Earth" concerts will reach an estimated 2 billion people worldwide. To transform all that awareness into action, the campaign behind the concerts created the "Live Earth Pledge"--asking supporters to raise our voice and roll up our sleeves to solve the global climate crises.

The pledge commitments are quite familiar to John Edwards supporters: revolutionizing the energy economy to reduce CO2 emissions, halting all new coal production without carbon capture technology, and taking steps to reduce carbon consumption in our personal lives.

If each of us signs the pledge and then gets just one more person each to join us in the next 72 hours, we can add the full weight of the John Edwards community to millions of other voices at this critical moment. So please sign the pledge yourself, and then ask your friends and family to do the same--it's time to put our address books to work for the cause of a generation.

You can sign online, at: www.johnedwards.com/liveearth

Or you can sign by texting the word 'EARTH' to 30644 from your mobile phone.

Also, on Saturday (July 7th) MoveOn.org, the League of Conservation Voters and other progressive groups are organizing hundreds of "Parties for the Planet" in living rooms all over the country.

It's a great chance to join with other likeminded folks in your area, tune into the Live Earth broadcast, and watch John Edwards and other Democratic presidential candidates lay out their plans to solve global warming as part of the next MoveOn.org "issue primary".

Thanks for the info.  Will someone PLEASE (with lovingj's permission) crosspost this at DKos?

please don't behave...

deactivated, yet???

OOPS by "this much" I meant on the importance of the environment issue!

Again you post the exact same post, yet fail to actually put some links and make a stronger point.

You're right, Obama and Clinton's plans only call for a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. While Richardson's plan calls for an 80% reduction by 2040, and Edwards plan calls for an 80% reduction by 2050. Scientists say that a 50% reduction will not be enough to reverse the course we're on, it's better than nothing but it's not enough.

Nice thing to do for Al though.

It's funny, I just went to the website five times after reading from all of you that it's not up on his website. It's right on the homepage, the thing is after you open the page seconds later the page evolves into other issues. It's also just below the main pic on the homepage as well. Look again.

What do you mean you don't care about the environment? You don't care about having air to breathe so you can stay alive???!?!?

People will say/write the darndest things!

What does that mean he "championed the liquid coal fuel debate"?  Coal accounts for 50% of our nation's electricity.  It employs thousands of workers, it is a major source of energy for China and India.  The confusion about Obama's position comes looking at him through our normal political prism where being willing to talk about an issue really means championing it, where seeking to find consensus and creative solutions really means to capitulate.  But that's not how he works.  He stays true to his principals while exploring all avenues to accomplish his goals.  

The Bush administration found this out in this very area of coal.  I found an interesting detail of this from the recent Washington Post article "Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama":  

On 2004 campaign visits to the region (Southern Illinois), Obama stuck up for the coal industry by criticizing pollution rules proposed by President Bush that Obama said unfairly favored Western coal and rallying behind workers who had lost their health benefits in mine bankruptcies.

After his election, Obama's commitment to the region was quickly tested. On the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he found himself the deciding vote on Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative to replace rules for coal-fired power plants with a system of pollution credits, which environmentalists attacked as a risky loosening of limits.

The Bush administration targeted Obama, banking on his rhetoric about thinking outside party lines and his concern for Downstate Illinois. But in the end, he held firm in opposition, saying the bill would worsen pollution while not helping the Illinois coal industry as much as claimed. The bill died in committee on a tie vote. Reaction was swift.

"All of [his] dialogue and rhetoric during the campaign had been pro-coal, and we saw this as a pro-coal initiative," Carbondale Mayor Brad Cole (R) said.

Three months later, Obama saw an opportunity to win back goodwill. He attached a provision to the 2005 energy bill for $85 million over five years to test using Illinois coal to produce transportation fuel.

What Bush and the Carbondale Mayor did not get was Obama stays consistent to his positions.  He is a solid environmentalist and is not going to sacrifice his commitment to improving our environment.  He is also committed to the people of the region and sympathetic to what the Coal Industry represents in terms of jobs in the area.  But instead of sacrificing one for the other or playing them off  against each other, he looks to satisfy both without compromising his ideals.  He stayed firm to his environmental stance while at the same time delivered to the Industry, and thus to the people, helping to save their jobs while at the same time pushing the Industry toward research which could be pro-environment.

Now the same people are crying once more, that in doing this they thought he was really pro-Coal and now he's slipping away again by demanding that CTL technology have 20% lower CO2 emissions than petroleum-based fuels.  If he was going to cave environmentally, he would have passed Bush's dirty Clear Skies Initiative in the first place.  He's not pro-Coal, in fact he's pro-Renewables, but he is pro-Coal worker and if there's a way to be that and lower our CO2 emissions, and reduce our dependance on foreign oil, then that is what he's going to do.  

"...he's years ahead of Edwards on the environment too..."

This just isn't true. I am sure you want to believe it and convince others of it but it is a blatant falsehood.

Not trying to start a fight. But please at least use facts to support your candidate.

So, Obama's years ahead huh? Even though Obama was sponsoring a CTL bill? Even though Obama's energy plan is much weaker then Edwards plan? Obama's plan only plans to cut 50% of carbon emissions by 2050, while Edwards cuts 80%, which is what scientists say needs to be done.

than both of theirs.  He obviously put some effort into his instead of just rushing it together.  He includes a personal message plus extra links.

I hope this doesn't mean Celine is performing.