Uncategorized

Upload your very own enviro-themed videos

Do you blog? Podcast? Post your homemade music or videos on the web? If so, you belong to "Generation C" as coined by the folks at Trendwatching.com who define this group like so:

No, this is not about a new niche generation of youngsters born between March 12, 1988, and April 24, 1993; the C stands for CONTENT, and anyone with even a tiny amount of creative talent can (and probably will) be part of this not-so-exclusive trend.

So what is it all about? The GENERATION C phenomenon captures the avalanche of consumer generated "content" that is building on the web, adding tera-peta bytes of new text, images, audio, and video on an ongoing basis.

The two main drivers fueling this trend? (1) The creative urges each consumer undeniably possesses. We're all artists, but until now we neither had the guts nor the means to go all out. (2) The manufacturers of content-creating tools, who relentlessly push us to unleash that creativity using, of course, their ever cheaper, ever more powerful gadgets and gizmos. Instead of asking consumers to watch, to listen, to play, to passively consume, the race is on to get them to create, to produce, and to participate.

For perspectives on Generation C, check out WorldChanging and FutureWise.

Now, to all you enviros who are members of Generation C, wouldn't it be cool if your environmentally themed short films actually appeared on television? Sound too good to be true? Then check out Current TV.

And, according to Wired, this fledgling cable channel needs your help. Nay, your videos.

EPA loophole could allow pesticide testing on kids

Just take a look at this San Francisco Chronicle headline:

EPA rule loopholes allow pesticide testing on kids

That's right -- if this story is to be believed, the EPA has created a loophole that would allow the pesticide industry to test whether its wares are safe by using real, live kids.  

But astonishingly, the real story is actually even uglier than that. According to the Chronicle, the EPA rules -- allegedly designed to protect kids and pregnant women -- specifically allow testing on "children who have been abused and neglected." Just read:

[W]ithin the 30 pages of rules are clear-cut exceptions that permit:

-- Testing of "abused or neglected" children without permission from parents or guardians.

-- "Ethically deficient" human research if it is considered crucial to "protect public health."

-- More than minimal health risk to a subject if there is a "direct benefit" to the child being tested, and the parents or guardians agree.

Read the story -- I'm not making this up.

102nd use for a dead cat

Turn it into biodiesel.

This smells a bit like a hoax. But perhaps it's not: after all, if you can turn turkey guts into biodiesel, why not felines?

And, come to think of it, why stop with cats?

Flood Is Thicker Than Water

Assessing toxic hazards in New Orleans challenges the EPA The post-Katrina mess of pollution along the Gulf Coast is “the largest national disaster that we at EPA or, we believe, that the nation has faced,” U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said yesterday. Serious health problems threaten the region, he said, including floodwaters tainted with sewage-related […]

Which airlines are going down?

Two major U.S. airlines, Delta and Northwest, have declared bankruptcy, citing high fuel costs as a reason. "Hurricane Katrina was probably the last straw," said a securities analyst keeping an eye on the proceedings.

Carriers in other countries are also feeling the petroleum pinch: Air China, British Air, and others are increasing the fuel surcharges that pass costs along to customers.

The two U.S. airlines -- the nation's third- and fourth-largest, respectively -- will keep plying the friendly skies. But don't expect extra pretzels.

A bonanza of energy-related stories in The New York Times

Today's New York Times has a bonanza of energy-related stories -- some tied to the most recent price increases triggered by Katrina and others to some longer-term trends ...

Ah, the magic of cable

On Monday, I mentioned that Jon Stewart was dedicating this week's shows to evolution. What I didn't know at the time (but found out at 11:20 p.m.) was that Chris Mooney was that night's guest. We love Chris Mooney! We love Jon Stewart! What a combination.

Earlier, on his blog, Chris had described the upcoming interview -- part of his book tour -- as a "biggie." But the only sign of nervousness was that he couldn't quite decide what to do with his hands. (Frankly, if I were in the hot seat, I'd probably forget how to speak.) He did well, and even slipped in two (count them!) mentions of global warming. Now that's entertainment.

The Reality of Bites

Coastal Mississippi braces for resurgence of mosquitoes post-Katrina Of the 175-odd species of mosquitoes in the United States, 56 call Mississippi home, and eight to 10 in particular hang out on the state’s Gulf Coast. And more than two weeks after Hurricane Katrina blew adult mosquitoes away, the eggs they left behind are starting to […]

Pact Into a Corner

NE states face choice between nuclear power and greenhouse-gas emissions New Jersey and Vermont — two of nine Northeast states negotiating a pact to cap greenhouse-gas emissions — rely heavily on nuclear-generated energy. Now, with the 40-year-long licenses of New Jersey’s Oyster Creek nuclear plant and the Vermont Yankee plant nearing expiration, the states could […]

A Los Angeles Times story tars wetlands activists without telling the whole story

... or so you can imagine Michelle Malkin reworking the old lawyer joke with glee this past weekend, when a reader alerted her to "A Barrier That Could Have Been" in the Sept. 9 edition of the Los Angeles Times.

In a nutshell, the newspaper reported that in 1977, wetlands preservation activists successfully sued under the National Environmental Policy Act to stop the Army Corps of Engineers from building a massive hurricane barrier meant to protect New Orleans. They proved to a U.S. District Court judge that the Corps had failed to do a thorough evaluation of the project's possible environmental impacts. The St. Tammany Parish and local fishers had also opposed the project.

The LAT reporters wrote, "Now the question is: Could that barrier have protected New Orleans from the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina?"

That's the wrong question.