Sending good vibes, in the form of Barack Obama singing Al Green. This video just never gets old.

Related on EcoSalon
President Obama Shows Compassion When Talking to Non-Binary Student [Video]
President Obama Wants the Hate to Stop [Video]
Watch Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey Talk About Women [Video]

The post Barack Obama: America’s Most Soulful President [Video] appeared first on EcoSalon.

This past week, Barack Obama published, via Glamour, a beautiful, tear-jerking essay about his deep love for his daughters and his devotion to the concept of feminism.

Obama discusses the feelings that most any dad who has a daughter leaving for college experiences: immense happiness, bone-shattering nerves, and Earth-shaking pride. The President also expresses the relief he feels knowing his girls will enter the working world at a time when women have more opportunities than ever.

Women can vote, choose if they have a baby or not, can work anywhere they want, and they certainly don’t have to marry to make it through life.

But Obama also knows that there are plenty of people in the United States and around the world who don’t view women equally to men. That depressing reality is why we need feminism more than ever. There are men and women who don’t value feminism–and some who even think it’s an outdated concept. And that’s why it’s so important that President Obama declared that he is, indeed, a feminist.

“As far as we’ve come, all too often we are still boxed in by stereotypes about how men and women should behave,” Obama says.

“One of my heroines is Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, who was the first African American to run for a major party’s presidential nomination. She once said, ‘The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, it’s a girl.’ We know that these stereotypes affect how girls see themselves starting at a very young age, making them feel that if they don’t look or act a certain way, they are somehow less worthy. In fact, gender stereotypes affect all of us, regardless of our gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.”

Obama gets that it’s going to take a long time for people to look inside themselves and change their opinions regarding women in order for worldwide shifts around women to occur. And while he knows that’s a daunting concept, he’s optimistic that people can make that leap.

“In fact, the most important change may be the toughest of all—and that’s changing ourselves,” he writes.

With any luck, whoever moves into the White House come January 2017, is ready to further the cause for women on our soil, and around the world.

Related on EcoSalon
Feminism in the Kitchen: Foodie Underground
Feminists Can’t Even Define Feminism [Video]
Other Appropriate Reactions to Totally Sexist Questions and Comments

Image of the president via Shutterstock

The post Barack Obama Shows Us What a Feminist Looks Like appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnQuick: The Beatles or the Stones? Ginger or Mary Ann? Bomb Syria or don’t bomb Syria? It’s silly to equate the gravity of these choices, but it’s clear that our culture delights in and demands quick decision making. To be unsure is to be lacking true character and deemed less-than-relevant. Consider the din of mocking reserved for those who sit “on the fence.”

Yes, we are called on to know—or at least say we do. And we are called on to know now. Reaction to the situation in Syria illustrated this well. After Basher al-Assad forces’ use of sarin gas and Barack Obama’s (for some long-awaited, for others misguided and exceptionally American) saber rattling, many of my friends, acquaintances, the nation and the world quickly made their selections. Statements in defense of both tacks, in traditional and social media, were definitive, clear, justified. Despite the fact that a process was unfolding, in the days and even hours following the August 21 incident, decision making happened quickly, teams were chosen and colors donned.

I too leaned in one way fast (for these purposes, it doesn’t really matter which one), but I ultimately found myself uncommitted—and subsequently increasingly uncomfortable. Dear friends, smart people, emphatically broke both ways, while I just couldn’t pull the trigger, as it were, and join one chorus or the other. I’d like to think that I was taking the time to gather all the data (one of which emerged as what now seems like a fortunate accident) as it came in. Perhaps there was just too much to consider. Perhaps I lacked decision making stamina after so many years of White House war drumming and the battles that followed. In any case, I felt caught in crossfire between instantly fossilized sides. Not a fun place to be.

Young Decision Making

Perhaps we’re wired in a way where being confronted with a choice translates into quick decision making. After all, right out of the pubescent gate we’re challenged to establish personal and generational identities by choosing this and not that without too much thought. How much did we listen to our parents music before declaring it irrelevant? The [insert your favorite band here] was where it was at for Generation [Yours]. Same for our fashion/politics/spiritual decisions v. theirs. While the extent of such rebellion varied among us, almost to the young man and woman we agreed, we were not going to be like our forebears. And here’s to that.

And so we charged (or backed?) into our truths: Rock over classical, modern over traditional, anything to (mostly unconsciously) define ourselves as part of our generation and/or clique. Some of this was pure fun. (For me, it was the Beatles and Mary Ann.) But short shrift and quick disposal of anything “other” was the order of the day. No need for hmms. And no time, either. Seeing the other side or dilly-dallying on where we came down meant being vulnerable in a no-man’s land where no one seemed to have your back. Being part of a tribe was paramount and those without quick decision making skills lacked status or even acceptance. Consideration was shunned and changing minds forbidden. As author and Penn State cultural studies professor Michael Bérubé once pointed out, “It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his tribal identity depends on his not understanding it.” Ah, youth.

Despite the fact that there is supposed to be a time to dispense with childish things, as we’ve grown older and left that messy sandbox, we still don’t always do a good job of taking in the broader view before decision making. In fact, the rules of our adolescent tribalism remain with us in a way that permeates our adult lives and our culture as a whole.

Consider This

The problem is that once we succumb to the pressure for quick decision making, defending our position in the face of new or unfolding information (or even changing tastes) can become a matter of ego—and that’s bad news. Even as the events of Syria unfolded, both the Obama-as-war-monger and punish-with-ordnance camps remained entrenched. But the facts on the ground were that a complicated situation with no easy answers was to a great extent diffused by a combination of factors and, dare I say it, a flexible thinker in the White House who took advantage of emerging facts and opportunities, both hoped for and unplanned. And none of this jibed with either side.

Again without comparing the graveness of such choices to the Syrian question, how many times have you read a book or seen a movie or encountered a piece of art and, though moved, were perplexed enough to need digestion time to tease out your thoughts and realize the full impact of the experience—only days, weeks or even years later reaching a conclusion. How many “one second thoughts” have you had? Sometimes understanding takes time—and sometimes it never fully happens before something leaves your figurative field of vision. Embracing this state of mind isn’t always easy, but it’s often critical to accurate decision making.

None of this is to defend apathy or disinterest—politically, artistically or otherwise. We’re not talking about those folks who on election night still insufferably seem to be neither here nor there, many of whom never had any intention of learning about the candidates, or even voting. (I, for one, am as uninterested in the uninterested as they are in me.)

I also don’t mean to challenge certain instances where we know what we know and delayed decision making is just senseless. (I remember advising my son upon his entering college to delay choosing a major until they threatened to throw him out. He chose Film on day one and two years out of college is enjoying a budding career in the field. Turns out he knew what he knew.) Moreover, some choices require quick action—if there’s a tiger in the room (or enemy planes in the air), taking one’s time before decision making would be pretty damn, well, thoughtless.

But here’s something to think about the next time you’re feeling uneasy about being perched on that fence: Shooting from the hip is an inaccurate game if you’re not Butch or Sundance. Bullseyes are most often attained when one takes careful aim before pulling the trigger (again, as it were). Know that assuming a thoughtful, jury’s out position can be an assertive and intellectually aggressive stance in itself—and one with its own style, if that matters. Of course, you might be well informed and confident, and being temporarily or permanently undecided is a rare occurrence for you. That’s fine. The trick though, as it is with so many things, is having the wisdom to know the difference.

(For the record, after careful thought and lifelong review, I’ll take both the Beatles and the Stones, and Ginger and Mary Ann.)

“Scott Adelson is EcoSalon’s Senior Editor of HyperKulture, a monthly column that explores opening cultural doors to initiate personal change. He is also the author of InPRINT, which reviews and discusses books, new and old. You can reach him at scott@adelson.org and follow him @scottadelson on Twitter.

HyperKulture: In Swoon’s Way – Time traveling and Staring Down Florence Syndrome

InPRINT: A Novel Challenge – Take Action and Read Outside Your Box

InPRINT: You Want Erotic? The Countless Shades of Anaïs Nin

InPRINT: Albert Camus and the Biggest Question of All

InPRINT: Gatsby, Paradise and the 1% – F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Pre-Occupation

Images: SAN_DRINO (top) and Desmond Tan

The post From the Sandbox to Syria — Tribe, Ego and Decision Making: HyperKulture appeared first on EcoSalon.

 A new construction project is underway at the White House, and it’s not a new bedroom for dignitaries or improvements to the bowling alley. It’s a fresh new set of solar panels. It’s unclear how much power the new array will actually produce, but for many, the act delivers more than electricity.

Despite the fact that it took Obama three years to fulfill his promise to restore the array, the seemingly small move is a big step, and says a lot about where we’re headed as a nation.

Nothing New Under The Sun

I often feel bad for former President Jimmy Carter. He’s always the butt of jokes, especially from conservatives, and criticized for his passive demeanor. Yet more than 30 years ago, Carter was championing solar power, and encouraging Americans to abandon fossil fuels for the promise of renewable energy. He walked the talk, putting 32 solar panels on the roof of the White House way back in 1979. What a different America–no, world–we’d be living in now if we’d only taken the hint and put our weight behind the solar energy industry back then.

But we didn’t. Instead, the oil lobby put its weight into our politicians, and in 1986, then-President Reagan had the panels removed. George Charles Szego, the engineer who persuaded Carter to install the solar panels, reportedly claimed that Reagan Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan “felt that the equipment was just a joke, and he had it taken down.”

Well, it wasn’t a joke. And now solar energy (along with wind and geothermal) represents one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States. Too bad we had to force the planet way over the C02 threshold and into human-accelerated climate change before we were willing to give it a chance.

Turning Up The Heat On Fossil Fuels

In 2010, President Obama pledged to install solar panels on his official residence as a sign of his commitment to renewable energy, and environmentalists were thrilled. According to the Washington Post, “at the time of the 2010 announcement, then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Nancy Sutley said the administration would conduct a competitive bidding process to buy between 20 and 50 solar panels.” The upgrade, “which will help demonstrate that historic buildings can incorporate solar energy and energy efficiency upgrades, is estimated to pay for itself in energy savings over the next eight years,” Sutley continued.

Now, several years later, the promise is bearing fruit. The Obama’s may not be touting it as an official signal that fossil fuels are on their way out, but there’s no denying it’s one of solar power’s biggest endorsements to date.

“No one should ever have taken down the panels Jimmy Carter put on the roof,” 350.org founder Bill McKibben said in an emailed press statement. “But it’s very good to know that once again the country’s most powerful address will be drawing some of that power from the sun.”

Pushing Americans to become more energy efficient has been a major focus of Obama’s Department of Energy, and there’s comfort to be found in an Administration that practices it what it preaches. But putting solar panels on the White House is the easy part. Changing deep-rooted policies that have favored fossil fuels for decades, that’s where the real work–and reward–is waiting.

Image: Francisco Diez

The post The White House Gets Solar Panels (Again): Will America Follow Suit? appeared first on EcoSalon.

It’s the year of the woman and you’d better be signed up to vote for her.

It’s been quite a roller-coaster ride since the Republican National Committee chose Mitt Romney as “most likely to succeed” President Barack Obama. Clearly, from the day President Obama took his oath of office in 2009, the right wing has been dead set on blocking all Democrat-sponsored legislation, as evidenced by the dramatically increased use of filibusters to block congressional voting.

One might assume that the constant undermining of the President by Republicans pining to recapture the White House would result in a breezy success story for the Romney campaign. It seems, however, that despite high expectations, the public has not fallen in love with the former Governor. His popularity has been dropping in recent weeks – caused, to a degree, by some inelegant candid statements captured on video and leaked to the press.

Desperate for a win, the GOP has resorted to disenfranchising whole segments of the population by reintroducing a modernized version of the post-Civil War Jim Crow era. Numerous Republican-controlled states have passed legislation that would discourage African Americans, Latinos, the elderly, the poor, and students from voting. Under the guise of “anti-fraud” regulations—though studies have shown voting fraud is almost non-existent—33 states now require one or more forms of picture identification to cast a ballot, even though many will find acquiring the necessary documentation to be difficult or impossible.

Although the Department of Justice is currently reviewing these restrictive measures state-by-state, time is growing short. The presidential election of 2012 is now only 43 days away. Meanwhile, grass-roots organizations are springing up to register voters, using social media venues like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to reach as many people as possible.

Today, September 25, is National Voter Registration Day and registering to vote will be as simple as going to a web site. There will be events at local libraries and schools nationwide. Just hit the “events” tab on the navigation bar, type in your zip code, and you will be pointed in the right direction. (Be sure to check the hours for each venue, as they may vary.)

For voter registration questions or to report problems (if any) there’s a toll-free number to call and contact information available in both English and Spanish. You’ll also find excellent information on requirements and deadlines for each state available from the New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. Simply find your state on the interactive map of the U S. and with a click, you’ll discover everything needed to cast your vote on November 6. While the site indicates it’s for students, anyone seeking detailed guidelines to state regulations or other updated election-related news will find this to be a useful resource.

And finally, check out Cuéntame. Geared to a young Latino audience, it’s enlightening, fact-filled, and entertains while delivering an inspiring message. You’ll register and then run to the voting booth on Election Day. Guaranteed.

video by Cuéntame

The post It’s the Year of the Woman: Register Today To Vote appeared first on EcoSalon.

Compare and contrast Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s stances on climate change, coal, fracking, domestic oil drilling and clean energy.

Where do Barack Obama and Mitt Romney differ on energy issues including climate change, coal, domestic drilling and renewable energy technologies? The stances of both candidates stick largely to party lines. Romney has poked fun at Obama’s concern for the environment, and favors a free-for-all approach to domestic energy production that lifts federal regulations on fossil fuel industries.

President Obama stresses an “all-of-the-above” plan that reduces fossil fuels to just a few small parts of a comprehensive energy strategy, emphasizing the need for clean energy. But Obama’s own statements on climate change, domestic oil drilling and other energy issues haven’t always gone over well with environmentalists. Here’s a rundown of each candidate’s viewpoints.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The candidates’ positions on climate change have everything to do with the way they see energy policy, and how the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment will shape the solutions they support. Unfortunately, climate change is far less of a focus in the lead-up to the 2012 election than it was in 2008, when then-candidate Obama frequently cited the reduction of greenhouse gases as one of his biggest goals as President. The issue only just came up again during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. But there are definite discrepancies between each candidate’s viewpoints.

Romney

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans, and to heal the planet. My promise… is to help you and your family.” – Mitt Romney, August 30th, 2012, Republican National Convention

Romney has gone back and forth on the issue of climate change, just in the space of the past year. In June 2011, he said “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe that the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that… And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

But by October 2011, he had changed his tune. “My view is we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Romney’s official website doesn’t mention climate change at all.

Obama

“And, yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. more droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future. And in this election you can do something about it.” – President Obama, September 6th, 2012, Democratic National Convention

At the official White House website, President Obama has laid out a series of steps that his administration has taken to reduce the emissions that lead to climate change, including international leadership, clean energy, monitoring emissions, adapting to the inevitable effects that we’re already beginning to experience and supporting climate change science and education.

However, the terms “climate change” and “global warming” don’t appear on his candidate website, BarackObama.com.

COAL

Both candidates support coal power to varying degrees, and both have softened previous statements against the polluting effects of coal mining and coal-fired power plants in apparent election-year ploys to avoid alienating residents of coal country states like West Virginia.

Romney

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney once stood beside a coal-fired power plant in Salem and said “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant, that plant kills people.” But his views have changed considerably since 2003. Romney wants to revise the Clean Air Act to eliminate greenhouse gas restrictions, giving coal power plants the ability to play an even larger role in America’s energy production.

Romney’s energy plan sets a goal for America to be energy-independent by 2020 – through increased extraction and use of domestic oil, gas and coal.

Obama

Since 2008, Obama has pledged support for the spurious concept of “clean coal,” and seems to be treading lightly on the issue in 2012. But rather than pushing coal as the main source of domestic energy, President Obama includes as just one of a range of energy technologies that can power America. His administration pushed for cap and trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, but after the legislation failed in the Senate it settled for allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact regulatory measures instead.

Along with pushing “clean coal,” Obama has invested in carbon capture and sequestration through the Recovery Act, and has implemented initiatives to improve miner health and safety.

DOMESTIC DRILLING AND FRACKING

Here we are four years after the last Presidential election, and cringe-worthy echoes of “Drill, Baby, Drill” still ring through our ears. While the Republican candidates, both in 2008 and 2012, favor a frenzy of domestic drilling, President Obama has been slightly more cautious, considering the environmental impact of each project.

Romney

“In the midst of the energy revolution taking place on state and privately-held lands across America, oil and gas production on federal lands somehow plummeted last year. This was no accident. President Obama intentionally sought to shut down oil, gas and coal production in pursuit of his own alternative energy agenda.” – Mitt Romney’s Energy Policy White Paper, 2012

Romney’s energy plan calls for giving states the right to oversee the production and development of all forms of energy within their own borders, pointing out that “At least sixty-two percent of known oil resources on federal lands are off-limits.” Those federal lands include environmentally sensitive, protected wildlife areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Romney wants to establish a new five year offshore leasing plan that “aggressively opens new areas for development beginning with those off the coast of Virginia and North Carolina.” He would also approve the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil into the U.S. market.

Romney also wants to lift back federal regulations for hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” the process by which natural gas is extracted from the earth.

Obama

“We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more. But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.” – President Obama, September 6th, 2012, Democratic National Convention

Domestic oil drilling has actually increased on President Obama’s watch, but he stresses that drilling should only be a small part of America’s energy strategy, saying “we’ll do it while protecting the health and safety of the American people.” The Obama administration stepped back on a plan to open more of the coastline to oil drilling after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, but in his State of the Union address in January 2012, Obama said he aims to go ahead with those plans.

President Obama approved the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline in March 2012 after previously declining to approve the permit for the northern portion, saying Congress hadn’t given him enough time to review the environmental impact.

While Obama pledges to take every step to develop domestic natural gas resources, he has stressed the importance of safety regulations. In his 2012 State of the Union address, the President said “I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

RENEWABLE ENERGY

The words energy innovation mean very different things to the two Presidential candidates. Mitt Romney’s energy policy refers to “the revolution in U.S. energy production,” but he’s talking about a surge in oil and natural gas drilling, not alternative energy. On the other hand, President Obama supports a broad range of clean energy technologies, considering them to be a crucial part of America’s energy future.

Romney

“In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed… as president, I will unleash American innovation and productivity to make full use of our natural resources.” – Mitt Romney, March 5th 2012

Five years ago, Romney was singing a different tune. While the candidate supported domestic oil drilling and coal, he also called for the use of alternative sources of energy including biodiesel, ethanol, wind power and solar power. But Romney’s current energy platform barely mentions renewable energy at all, except to disparage President Obama’s efforts to bolster these industries.

Mitt Romney’s official website reads, “As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of ‘green’ jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation. The ‘green’ technologies are typically far too expensive to compete in the marketplace, and studies have shown that for every ‘green’ job created there are actually more jobs destroyed. Unsurprisingly, this costly government investment has failed to create an economic boom.”

Obama

“We can’t have an energy policy for the last century that traps us in the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” – President Obama, March 15th 2012

The Obama administration’s investment in clean energy is the largest in American history, nearly doubling the generation of technologies like solar, wind and geothermal power production. America’s first-ever offshore wind farm is expected to produce enough clean energy to power more than 200,000 homes. The administration has also approved the construction of 16 commercial-scale solar facilities, five wind and eight geothermal projects on public lands. Together, these projects are expected to power about 1.3 million homes and support 12,500 jobs.

President Obama also supports a Clean Energy Standard that would double the share of electricity from clean energy sources to 80 percent by 2035.

Image: 1 + 2

The post A Guide to the Presidential Candidates’ Energy Policies appeared first on EcoSalon.

Your graphical guide to Election 2012.

With the proliferation of news media and the punditry that comes from anyone with a soapbox (or Twitter handle) it can be difficult to wrap your head around the major issues at stake this election season. That’s why we’ve brought you this collection of politically-themed infographics, which explore everything from candidate tax proposals to voter suppression to social media rankings to merchandise statistics. Rumor has it that t-shirt sales are a key election result indicator…

Navigating Political Terminology in an Election Year: study up on your political jargon with this handy (and hilarious) multiple choice guide.

U.S. Presidential Election 2012: a month-by-month look at election season, courtesy of Al Jazeera.

The Digital Campaign Landscape: it’s looking to be the most expensive campaign season in history, and millions of that moolah is going into online advertising.

The Incredible Shrinking Cities: a historical look at the rise and fall of hot-button political issues; note how words like “cities” and “urban” have slowly disappeared into the mix.

Presidential Candidates and Their Tax Proposals: the tax experts at H&R Block explore how each candidate plans to address the issue of taxes.

A Closer Look at the 2012 GOP Candidates: if you care for a closer glance at Mitt, Newt, Ron, and Rick, here’s your chance.

Election 2012 Social Media Rankings: see how a candidate’s clout translates to Klout in the social media world.

The Facts About Voter Suppression: according to the ACLU, there has been more state legislation aimed at suppressing the vote, particularly for minority voters.

The Social Campaign: a visualization of how social media’s influence on elections has changed between 2008 and 2012.

Political Merch Poll 2012: yeah, there’s foreign policy and gay marriage, but let’s explore the real issues: t-shirt sales.

ALSO CHECK OUT:

10 Earth Day Infographics

10 Food Infographics That Have Us Consciously Consuming

10 Fashion Infographics to Give Us a New Style Sense

Image: DonkeyHotey

The post 10 Political Infographics on Election 2012 appeared first on EcoSalon.

According to Lucinda Marshall at Truthout, young children and babies in utero are at a major risk of chemical poisoning after oil spills because their immune systems are not fully developed, leaving them incapacitated to fight off dangerous compounds. While the National Institutes of Health have provided information on the way endocrine disrupters – common in both the oil and the substances used to clean it up – scientists aren’t clear on the effects of the chemicals, in part because until very recently, they had no idea which chemicals were being disseminated.

Now, without first telling Nalco Holding Co., the manufacturer of the dispersants that BP is using, the Environmental Protection Agency has released a list of ingredients used to break down the oil. And – shocker – the news isn’t pretty. One of the ingredients, 2-butoxyethanol, caused major health problems among cleanup workers on the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. That, plus the oil itself, could spell major risks to pregnant women and their fetuses.

According to Dr. Gina Solomon, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, “Some of the volatile chemicals in oil have been linked to miscarriage, preterm birth, and low birth weight, so it is a good idea for pregnant women to avoid the areas where there are elevated levels of VOCs [Volatile Organic Compounds] in the air. These are areas that include noticeable smells of oil or visible oil and also any areas where the EPA monitoring system detects elevated levels. The EPA air monitoring results are being updated regularly at www.epa.gov/bpspill. To be cautious, pregnant women may choose to avoid any areas directly along the waterfront and beachfront, even when oil is not visible.”

That’s easy enough advice to follow for would-be Gulf Coast vacationers (as if there are any this season). But for pregnant women living near the spill zone – where oil and dispersants reenter the atmosphere after being burned off the water – avoiding chemical exposure is akin to turning a blind eye to the disaster itself.

Image: Hello Turkey Toe

The post BP Oil Spill Imperils Pregnant Gulf Coasters appeared first on EcoSalon.

Today in Hill/Street Greens, from the Hill…

Know what spells efficiency? A 6,200-word blog post that attempts to define efficiency.

This morning, the White House responded to criticisms that suggested it acted slowly to the Gulf oil disaster by posting an entry on its official blog. It’s more of a movie treatment, really, dutifully story-boarding what the government has done since the moment the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana on April 20th.

From the post, written by White House Deputy Homeland Security Advisor Heidi Avery:

Evening of Tuesday, April 20

Search and Rescue

The U.S. government response to the BP Oil Spill began immediately after the explosion on the night of April 20 as an emergency search-and-rescue mission. At approximately 10:30 p.m. that night, notification was received that Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Deepwater Horizon had exploded and was on fire. The rig was located 45 miles southeast of Venice, LA.

Establish Command Center to Address Potential Environmental Impacts

Concurrently, the administration also quickly establishes a command center on the Gulf Coast to address the potential environmental impact of the event and to coordinate with all state and local governments. Since this point, the administration has continuously anticipated and planned for a worst-case scenario.

NOAA Mobilizes to Provide Trajectory Support

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) mobilizes within three hours of the explosion and started to provide trajectory support and coordinated scientific weather and biological response services. The NOAA weather forecast office in Slidell, LA., also provided weather information to the Coast Guard at its request shortly after the explosion to support initial search-and-rescue operations.

The President is Alerted

The President is alerted to the event and he begins actively monitoring the situation. At the time, it was known that 126 people were on the rig when the explosion occurred.

…and fade out.

The Obama administration has worked hard to beat the press and public relations clusterspill to the punch and address the impact and restoration of the disaster. Thus far, key members of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard have been deployed to Louisiana to help coordinate the response.

Then there’s the tough talk, a la Martin Scorsese. President Obama said this two days ago:

“Let me be clear. BP is responsible for this leak, BP will be paying the bill. But, as President of the United States, I’m going to spare no effort to respond to this crisis for as long as it continues. We will spare no resource to clean up whatever damage is caused. And while there will be time to fully investigate to find out what happened on that rig and hold responsible parties accountable, our focus now is on a fully coordinated, relentless response effort to stop the leak and prevent more damage to the Gulf.”

This hard-boiled rhetoric has that De Niro ring to it, doesn’t it? BP better pay-up on the environmental and economic debt this spill has caused – or else. Also, at several press briefings, President Obama has mentioned that the oil company will bear the full cost of the disaster. (And cue the price spike for gasoline in 3…2…1…)

Do you feel that the administration is still only providing a play-by-play from behind the scenes? Several criticisms suggest that it took the government over a week to label the spill as being of “national significance,” which green-lights more federally approved monies and personnel to respond to a crisis. Tell us what you think in the comments.

Editor’s Note: This is the latest installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Image: U.S. Army Environmental Command

The post The White House Pens Oil Disaster Response Screenplay on Its Blog appeared first on EcoSalon.

The nation’s retailers will tell you his message of change seems to make good cents. Americans are commemorating Barack Obama’s inauguration the American way, buying up feel-good items with the new leader’s image and slogans to show support.

The supply of Obama buttons, ball caps and Victory Plates peddled online and in city streets is barely meeting the demand, giving a boost to vendors who suffered a dreary holiday retail season.

One Washington lawyer who bought a T-shirt from the Presidential Inaugural Committee store told the New York Times, “America is excited about Obama so this all makes sense because when Americans want to express their excitement, they turn to merchandising.” Spotting $70 tote bags by Diane von Furstenberg and Tory Burch, the lawyer wondered if it could all be part of the stimulus program.

None of it appears to be organic, recycled or whittled from responsibly-planted forests, but from what I can tell, stuff sold at official sites like Store Barak Obama appears to be made in the USA, which I suppose is a start. We greenies can turn to sites like Say It Green to customize our own presidential products.

The upside to collecting the genuine political buttons, stamps and other memorabilia is an investment in the future. They could be worth a great deal some day as vintage memorabilia. And of course, they can be quite meaningful to Americans witnessing a day when we have, indeed, overcome so many biases and obstacles of the past.

If you are looking to buy into the message, you don’t have to travel far. The QVC television shopping network has already sold 100,000 items related to the election according to Dallas News. QVC sees today as a chance to hit a wider consumer audience – and will broadcast live from Washington to push pocket watches and other souvenirs. The host will not just display a flawless French manicure but also dress for success…in a ball gown.

I don’t think I will be whipping out my credit card. I am, however, reading Dreams of my Father, my book group’s current selection, to understand more about the struggles and successes that have shaped the 44th president. I can’t wear it or wave it or drink coffee from it, but in my mind, it’s a $15 well spent.

The post Message in the Merchandise appeared first on EcoSalon.