Today
Sections
More
Features
Displaying 1 - 10 of 240 |
Next »Calif.
Urban homesteading, TM?
A .2-acre parcel of land in Pasadena belonging to the Dervaes family produces nearly 7,000 pounds of vegetables, milk and eggs, making the Dervaeses — who began transforming their plot in the mid-1980s — a big name in the urban homesteading movement, in which urban residents seek to become self-sufficient by generating their own power, raising livestock, growing produce, canning, and even crafting their own herbal remedies.
About a year ago, CUESA's Julie Cummins told me it was a hot new trend. But in the last week, it's taken something of a wrong turn, as the Dervaeses suddenly fired off a spate of informal cease and desist letters to others using the term "urban homestead," claiming they've trademarked the term. Oakland's Institute of Urban Homesteading was among those receiving the letter.
Founder K. Ruby Blume's feathers were plenty ruffled.
"This issue has taken up my entire life for the past few days," said Blume. "Urban homesteading is a national movement that's happening in every state. The Dervaes family are part of that movement and have done their part to popularize it. But so have many many others. I disagree with ownership of a common use term that belongs to a popular progressive movement."
The Dervaes family also filed a Digital Millenium Copyright Act take-down notice to Google regarding the book The Urban Homestead. It seems they messed with the wrong people. The authors, Kelly Coyne and Erik Knudsen, quickly retained San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation to represent them, and EFF fired off a very formal cease and desist letter.
Corynne McSherry, EFF's Intellectual Property Director, also noted that the Dervaes claim was a misuse of the DMCA.
"The DMCA sets up this system for easy takedown when there's a copyright complaint," she said McSherry. "Not trademarks, not defamations, not any other type of legal complaint a person might have."
It seems the Dervaeses — pushing the boundaries of self-sufficiency — didn't get a lawyer before walking into this mess. So far, they're sticking to their guns, despite the negative reaction, but it seems unlikely that the request for a trademark will succeed. Their 2008 trademark application was denied.
You can follow the case on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's website, or you can join the Facebook group that aims to tell the Dervaeses to back off — unless, of course, Facebook takes it down for copyright violation.
| February 22 2011 at 03:30 PM
Shark fins: Can we preserve human culture and dwindling species?
A state bill introduced by Jared Huffman and Paul Fong to ban sale and distribution of shark fins has ignited a complicated debate about cultural practices that are no longer environmentally sustainable.
Shark finning is a practice in which sharks are caught, definned, and tossed back into the water to die. The cruel practice been identified as a likely cause of the global collapse of shark populations. It's already illegal to import fins, without the shark attached, into the United States.
But the California legislators say the federal bill clearly isn't doing enough since shark fin soup continues to be served as an expensive delicacy in Chinese restaurants around the state.
Shark finning dates to times before our animal cruelty sensibility was as keen, before fishing technology was as advanced, and before the human population was as large. But those times have changed: Should the traditional practice be forced to change with them?
Sen. Leland Yee doesn't think so: He immediately raised his hackles in response to the bill, calling it insensitive to Chinese culture. Yee has a very strong environmental record.
But Fong shot right back, "I grew up on shark fin soup, but when I found out the effect it is having on the shark population two years ago, I stopped eating it."
For some additional context, traditional mainland Chinese practices, largely medicinal, are driving poaching of threatened animals including elephants, tigers and rhinos.
As an environmentalist who is not of Chinese descent, I tend to think that cultural practices have to be abandoned when they are very clearly no longer in harmony with the environment or prevailing ethics. (If the planet dies, all of its human cultures will, too.) And, if shark fin soup runs $75 a bowl, this isn't a tradition that any but the most privileged are enjoying.
In some cases, leaders within the traditional Chinese medicine community have said they no longer need increasingly rare animals like those aforementioned. But when cultural outsiders lead the charge against a traditional practice, resentment brews. So perhaps what we need is a larger contingent of Chinese and Chinese Americans to speak out against shark finning.
What do you think?
Update: I came across this piece asking similar questions by Bernice Yeung at Hyphen Magazine. She thinks there may be less overreaching ways to cut down on shark slaughter, since, after all, the meat is still legal.
| February 15 2011 at 03:20 PM
Plaintiffs speak: Chevron fined $8 billion for Amazon pollution
I'm often a defender of the mainstream media — being accurate and fair is a thankless job, and the media often gets criticized for running somewhat salacious stories despite its role merely meeting a seemingly insatiable demand for such stories.
Joe Berlinger, Crude
But I'm scratching my head at the breaking coverage of an Ecuadorian court's ruling that Chevron caused environmental and health damages in the Amazon rainforest totaling $8 billion.
In early breaking coverage, there were virtually no statements from the plaintiffs, only from Chevron. That's not balanced. You could say that the plaintiffs are hard to reach, being indigenous residents of the Amazon rainforest, but they've got a U.S. PR firm, and I just received a statement in my inbox from their lead attorney, Pablo Fajardo. It reads:
"We believe today's judgment affirms what the plaintiffs have contended for the past 18 years about Chevron's intentional and unlawful contamination of Ecuador's rainforest. Until we have had a chance to review the lengthy decision, we will not be able to comment in detail.
"As a general matter, the plaintiffs provided the court with a great quantum of scientific and documentary evidence that Chevron deliberately and in violation of all industry norms discharged billions of gallons of toxic waste into the rainforest and into the water supply relied on by thousands of Ecuadorian citizens.
"Rather than accept that responsibility, Chevron has launched a campaign of warfare against the Ecuadorian courts and the impoverished victims of its unfortunate practices. We call on the company to end its polemical attacks and search jointly with the plaintiffs for common solutions. We believe the evidence before the court deserves international respect and the plaintiffs will take whatever actions are appropriate consistent with the law to press the claims to a final conclusion."
(H/T to the Wall Street Journal for calling Fajardo for comment.)
I don't know every nuance of the case, but I do know that Chevron paid an operative to create video footage that made it appear as if the judge presiding over the case had been bought off, and then denied its role in the would-be sting. (That judge recused himself.) The company also was found to have committed fraud when it documented clean-up efforts that had not taken place.
To quote Chevron calling this proceeding a fraud without even a tip of the hat to those findings is misleading.
The company's allegations against the plaintiffs include charges that they were fictitious identities and that they were pressured by high-powered lawyers to go after the company's deep pockets. Chevron is using those claims as the basis of an appeal to an international tribunal, asking that the ruling be vacated.
Update: Here's a blog post from Rainforest Action Network about the decision and what you can do to encourage Chevron to pay up.
Update 2: The New York Times has a bigger picture look at the case here.
| February 14 2011 at 01:54 PM
Government scientists warn of California 'superstorms'
If climate change isn't on your radar yet, perhaps a massive 'superstorm' dumping as much as 10 feet of rain across California would put it there.
NASA
USGS scientists unveiled a scenario that would cause such a storm at a conference last week, noting that the damage a 'superstorm' would cause would dwarf that caused by a large earthquake by a factor of five. A quarter of all homes in the state would likely experience flooding.
The scenario supposed that two historic storms — of January 1969 and February 1986 — occurred "back to back in a scientifically plausible way," explained USGS scientist Lucy Jones, stressing that "the model is not an extremely extreme event."
Even a single historical storm, occurring in the winter of 1861-62, dumped enough rain to inundate a 300-by-20-mile-wide stretch of the Central Valley and to create lakes in the Mojave Desert. It rained for 45 days — more than the Biblical flood Noah faced.
As the planet's average temperatures rise, the atmosphere stores more energy, making such dramatic events increasingly plausible.
| January 26 2011 at 11:38 AM
Friday fish update: California moves to certify sustainable seafood
The state of California has floated a draft protocol that would develop a sustainable seafood certification that fisheries could choose to seek, much like the optional organic label. Fish would be scored on the health of the species' population, fisheries management and its overall environmental impact factoring in bycatch.
It's the first sustainability effort to take up Michael Pollan's suggestion that foods carry a barcode that gives consumers access to information on the item's provenance and method of production. That information would, however, only be available to consumers who own smart phones.
The proposed system is a start, but it has some serious shortcomings. First, the standards are based on the Marine Stewardship Council's framework, which has been criticized. Second, there's absolutely no consideration of the fish's levels of mercury or other toxins.
In other fish news, Montreal fish are not depressed.
The Lake Effect is a mood-killing winter blanket of clouds and snow that spreads out from the Great Lakes from October to May. In Montreal, things are so bad that one in four people takes some kind of antidepressant. Fish in the Saint Lawrence river are exposed to the happy pills even after the city's water has been treated — and their bran scans show it.
The recent findings are troublesome because Montreal's sewage treatment system is similar to those of many major cities. Even in cities with more sophisticated systems, like San Francisco, it's very difficult to clear the water of the antidepressant compounds.
| January 21 2011 at 11:28 AM
Change brewing in organic wine labeling
When organic standards went mainstream under the USDA, many of those who are most passionate about organic farming were outraged. The USDA isn't known for making flexible rules or for concerning itself with sustainability.
To wit: Because preservatives were verboten in most organic foods, the USDA also forbade the addition of sulfites to any wines earning the organic label.
The choice preempted the development of any serious organic wine industry. It's really, really hard to make good wine without sulfites, which stop fermentation at the desired point and keep fruit flavors bright.
California winemakers — many of whom are very serious about sustainability — have adapted in a number of ways. Some label their wine as "made with organic grapes," but find that label lackluster.
Others have gone with more woo-woo philosophies, such as biodynamics, that gave birth to the organic movement in the first place. The California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance has developed its own seal, which embraces a variety of approaches. (Find a list of wines earning that seal here.)
The result of the multi-pronged approach, however, is a confused consumer.
But some green vintners — including Paul Dolan, pictured, a pioneer of organic grape growing — are now pushing the USDA to allow sulfites in wine labeled organic.
I've heard from people who've worked with wine that sulfites are, in fact, nasty stuff, but only a tiny amount is used per gallon of wine. Nor are they the source of most wine allergies — and, as their advocates point out, allergies are not part of the organic criteria.
What do you think? Should added sulfites be allowed in organic wines?
| January 07 2011 at 01:32 PM
Obesity caused by what you breathe?
Diabetes. Asthma. Obesity. All are on the rise. What if they're all caused by the same thing?
Courtesy The Ohio State University
At least one study found that air pollution — known to contribute to asthma — also spurs both obesity and diabetes in young mice, suggesting that it may also contribute to the ubiquitous problems in humans.
Ohio State researchers found that young mice exposed to air pollution had larger and more fat cells in their abdominal area and higher blood sugar levels than mice eating the same diet but breathing clean air.
According to Dr. Quinhua Sun, associate professor of environmental health sciences at Ohio State University and lead author of the study, his is "one of the first, if not the first, study to show that these fine particulates directly cause inflammation and changes in fat cells, both of which increase the risk for Type 2 diabetes."
Another recent study even suggests that air pollution may be behind that other epidemic: autism. Researchers from Saban Research Institute of Children's Hospital Los Angeles calculated that children living within 1,000 feet of a freeway had twice the risk of autism as those who didn't.
The body of evidence is still small, but so many studies link air pollution with so many diseases that it's clear it's time to get serious about it. Fortunately, most predict that California's new cap-and-trade program will reduce particulate pollution in addition to greenhouse gas pollution.
| December 29 2010 at 12:57 PM
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a flying wind turbine!
A new generation of renewable energy entrepreneurs are developing turbines to harness the wind in the upper layers of the atmosphere, where some believe as much as 870 terawatts (or 87 trillion watts) of energy lurks. The question is how bring it back down to Earth.
Courtesy Makani Power
NASA aerospace engineer Mark Moore has proposed tethering floating turbines with nanotube cables that would double as transmission wires.
But that's just one idea in the ascendant industry, and Moore has won a the first-ever federal grant to evaluate airborne wind generation. He will study all the proposals private companies have begun to float, such as Italian startup TWIND's paired balloons with sails attached and Alameda-based Makini Power's glider wing concept (pictured). "We're trying to create a level playing field of understanding," explains Moore, "where all of the concepts and approaches can be compared."
However it works, every tethered turbine would require a swath of no-fly zone around it, something the airline industry would surely resist. Moore will look into the possibility of flying the turbines above the ocean, which would minimize competition for air space but increase the difficulty of getting the energy to where it's needed. Because the questions surrounding airborne wind power generation are so big and so global, it's great to see the government open up the funding tap.
| December 27 2010 at 03:03 PM
WikiLeaks suggest Chevron sought illegal oil deal with Tehran
Despite the U.S.'s aggressive support for sanctions on Iran, cables leaked as part of the WikiLeaks dump suggest that local company Chevron sought to establish an oilfield straddling Iraq's border with the enemy state.
The revelation comes in a cable reporting that Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki asked the U.S. for guidance on participating in such a deal with a U.S. company, given the sanctions.
According to the Guardian, "Chevron declined to either confirm or deny that it had been in contact with Iran, and confined its reaction to a statement saying it had not done, and would not do, anything in violation of U.S. law."
However, sanctions against Iran would appear to specifically prohibit engaging in such lucrative deals with Iran.
As Glenn Beck might say if he weren't a pro-industry conservative: Chevron. Tehran. Hear the connection?
Back on Earth, it's just another tick in the column that says reliance on oil undermines our national security, and it's a red herring to distinguish between oil that comes from friendly states — like Iraq or, you know, California — with oil that comes from countries that make their living sowing hatred for the U.S.
| December 21 2010 at 12:09 PM
Chromium 6: It's in the water again
The more things change, the more they stay the same. So it seems with regard to Erin Brokovich's exposure PG&E;'s contamination of Hinkley, California's drinking water with the cancer-causing chromium 6.
The movie's old news, but a plume contaminating groundwater with the probable carcinogen is currently expanding, forcing PG&E; to offer to buy residents' homes.
And it turns out that chromium 6 (also known as hexavalent chromium) was found in 31 U.S. cities' water supplies in a sampling of 35 cities. Among them, and in order of the severity of the contamination, are Riverside, San Jose, and Sacramento, California.
California has proposed a safe level of of .06 parts per billion, a limit that 25 of the city water supplies — including all of those in California — exceeded.
Industrial use of chromium 6 has dwindled since the Erin Brokovich's time, and, as a strange footnote that shows how difficult it is to conclusively tie a contaminant with specific health effects, later studies have suggested that there is no cancer cluster in Hinkley.
Even so, I'm certainly going to stay tuned to see if the next round of tests includes San Francisco.
| December 20 2010 at 03:26 PM
more