April 2007 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] Newsom unveils first bus in fleet of hybrid muni buses
by Eric Brooks 13 Apr '07

13 Apr '07

Newsom unveils first bus in fleet of hybrid muni buses *Photo courtesy DaimlerChrysler.com <http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0-5-8786-1-617062-1-0-0-0-0-0-8669-716…>* * By Tamara Barak and Caitlin Cassady, Bay City News Service* April 10, 2007 *SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) - *Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency chief Nat Ford this morning unveiled the first of what will be a fleet of diesel-electric hybrid Muni buses. "This is part of our effort to have a zero-emission fleet by 2015. The hybrids are more fuel efficient, produce less emissions and are less costly," than the 20-year-old diesel-powered buses they will replace, Newsom said. More than half of Muni's vehicles already run on electricity provided by overhead cables. The new buses are in line with Proposition I, passed by San Francisco voters in 2004. The law mandates that Muni replace diesel buses that were purchased before 1991 with green powered vehicles. The city will put about five hybrid buses into service each week until it reaches its goal of 86 new vehicles. The 30-foot and 40-foot buses feature larger passenger windows, as well as low floors to accommodate disabled and senior citizen boarding, according to Ford. They will also feature cameras installed in the roof "to deter improper behavior on the vehicle," Ford said. The hybrid vehicles, which feature a small diesel engine that powers an electric generator, will save about 20,000 gallons of gas per vehicle each year, Ford said. They will also save the city considerable money in maintenance fees, as the hybrid buses are generally considered more reliable, according to Ford. Once all the buses are acquired, San Francisco's fleet of hybrid vehicles will be the third largest in the U.S., Newsom said. New York City, Boston and Seattle have also employed the technology. Muni isn't the only city agency to overhaul its fleet to reduce vehicle emissions. As of March 19, more than 400 garbage collection vehicles in San Francisco had changed over to alternative fuels, according to Norcal Waste System Inc. spokesman Robert Reed. The alternative fuels cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5,400 tons per year, a 21 percent decrease from when the trucks were using only diesel. The three companies that work under the umbrella of Norcal Waste System Inc. - Sunset Scavenger, Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling and S.F. Recycling & Disposal, Inc. - started experimenting with alternative fuels in 2001 when they built a liquefied natural gas filling station, Reed reported. The pilot program for the alternative fuel fleet consisted of eight transfer trucks and five collection trucks. The remainder of the fleet was switched over in March and the trucks run on liquefied natural gas or biodiesel B-20, a blended fuel, which is 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent low-sulfur diesel, according to Reed. In addition to Muni's efforts to go green, the transit system is also attempting to become more user-friendly. Beginning today at 5:30 p.m., the SFMTA will offer Fast Passes on its Web site. For more information, log onto http://www.sfmta.com. */Copyright © 2007 by Bay City News, Inc. -- Republication, Rebroadcast or any other Reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited./*

1 0

[Sustain] Where's that goddamn announcement with the address?
by Ann Garrison 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

I got half a dozen announcements, so I deleted some and now I can't even find one; there are probably 100 messages stacked on top of the few I saved.

1 1

Re: [Sustain] Please unsubscribe
by Ann Garrison 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

I, for one, will be delighted to get rid of you. You probably got on when I contacted you about that despicable AB32 legislation, totally gutted by the California EPA before Schwarzenegger signed it. You called to ask me if I'd like to pose as part of the backdrop in the photo op at Treasure Island, with Gavin, Arnold, and Tony Blair, a big clean nuclear proponent---for free. I wrote back to ask whether anyone, press or citizens, would be allowed to ask any questions about AB32 as it was signed. That's when you stopped calling me. The current EPA, including the California EPA, should be disbanded, and you should find something worthwhile to do with your life. There might still be time. --Ann Garrison, San Francisco, CA On Apr 10, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Schmidt.David(a)epamail.epa.gov wrote: > Please take me off your sustainability(a)sfgreens.org email list. I > don't know how I ever got on the list, but there's just too much email > that's unrelated to my work (almost all of it), and this is my work > email. > > Thanks! > > David D. Schmidt > Office of Planning/Public Affairs, PPA-2 > EPA Pacific Southwest/Region 9 > 75 Hawthorne St. > San Francisco, CA 94105 > (415) 947-4247 > email: schmidt.david(a)epa.gov > >

3 3

[Sustain] Pelosi goes nuclear
by pamndave＠speakeasy.net 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

Just in case you were wavering in your views of Nancy Pelosi: Now nuclear power is "on the table." Of course, impeaching our war crimal president is "off the table." (From the CommonDreams.org website) Published on Monday, April 9, 2007 by Los Angeles Times Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants by Richard Simon WASHINGTON - The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change.Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer - Bay Area Democrats with similar political views - are on opposite sides. Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. ?I think it has to be on the table,? she said. Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was ?trading one problem for another.? Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants. Opponents of nuclear power say that because a terrorist attack on a plant could be catastrophic, it makes no sense to build more potential targets. And radioactive waste still has no permanent burial site, they say, despite officials? three decades of trying to find one. But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up. The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases. Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help ?spur the revival of nuclear power.? And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority. ?I?ve never been a fan of nuclear energy,? said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. ?But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it.? The public?s attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change. Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power, but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found that a larger majority, 61%, supported the increased use of nuclear energy ?to prevent global warming.? Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976 ban on new nuclear plants in the state. ?There?s no question that the attention to climate change over the last several years has materially changed the public discussion of nuclear power,? said Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of energy experts. Given the threat of global warming, he said, ?it?s hard to ignore the principal source of noncarbon power generation in the country today.? One environmental group has tried to keep an open mind. ?We don?t think any options should be taken off the table when dealing with global warming,? said Environmental Defense spokesman Charlie Miller. The nuclear power industry in the U.S. has been at a virtual standstill because of high construction costs, regulatory uncertainties and public apprehension after a 1979 accident at Pennsylvania?s Three Mile Island. A number of plants ordered before the accident went into operation. But many more were canceled after one of the Three Mile Island reactors suffered a partial meltdown and small amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere. Reviving the industry has been a priority for President Bush, who sees nuclear power as crucial to meeting a growing demand for electricity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive applications for about two dozen new plants in the next few years - in part because of provisions in a 2005 energy bill designed to promote nuclear power. Currently, 103 nuclear plants - including Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo and San Onofre in northern San Diego County - generate about 20% of the nation?s electricity. The amount of congressional support for nuclear power is unclear. When McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) added subsidies for nuclear power to their 2005 bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they lost support from environmentalists and votes in Congress, including Boxer?s. McCain said he had no idea whether he would be more successful this time. But he said there was ?no way that you could ever seriously attack the issue of greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power, and anybody who tells you differently is not telling the truth.? On Capitol Hill last month, former Vice President Al Gore, who has become a leading advocate for swift action on climate change, said he saw nuclear plants as a ?small part? of the strategy. ?They?re so expensive, and they take so long to build, and at present they only come in one size: extra large,? he said. ?And people don?t want to make that kind of investment in an uncertain market for energy demand.? The McCain-Lieberman bill, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to a third of 2000 levels, would provide federal loans or guarantees to subsidize as many as three advanced reactor projects. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public Citizen said the bill would authorize more than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new nuclear plants. Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), a cosponsor of the McCain-Lieberman legislation, thinks support for nuclear power could bring more votes. ?Three or four years ago, if you included nuclear, you lost more than you gained,? he said. ?Today ? you pick up more than you lose.? But nuclear power faces huge political and economic obstacles. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) remains opposed to the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in his state. And Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said he did not think subsidies could overcome the concerns of potential investors. ?There isn?t enough money in the federal till to change Wall Street?s calculation of the financial risks,? he said. Even some lawmakers who support nuclear power question whether the industry needs more federal money. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sees nuclear power as a ?mature industry,? said Bill Wicker, his spokesman. ?Emerging climate-friendly and genuinely renewable technologies like wind and solar and geothermal and biomass could use that [funding] boost,? Wicker said. Some environmentalists remain steadfastly opposed to nuclear power. ?Investments in energy conservation and renewable energy are quicker, more cost-effective and sustainable ways to reduce global warming emissions,? said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, which will oppose McCain?s bill as long as it contains subsidies for nuclear power. Such environmentalists also note that carbon emissions from nuclear fuel processing are significant. They say the costs and risks of nuclear power are too high and far greater than alternatives, such as solar and wind power. ?Switching from coal to nukes,? said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club?s global warming program, ?is like giving up smoking and taking up crack.? richard.simon(a)latimes.com Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

6 9

[Sustain] Spamming the Sustainability List
by Ann Garrison 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

> Hi Ann, > > I really admire your dedication as an activist. But I've got to > tell you, you are practically thinking out loud on the > Sustainability email list these days, instead of carefully > considering what you are writing and making sure it is really > necessary for the whole group to see. In the case below, you were > asking people who were already on the way to an event, to email you > the location. Not very likely to succeed. > > Please do your best to send short concise emails that don't rant or > ramble, and that the whole group really needs to see, can benefit > from, and that really need our attention. > > Cool? > > peace > > eric Sorry to junk everyone's e-box with my sudden anxiety about making that Peak Oil Ed event, but I very nearly gave up on it 'cause I'd rushed home from another urgency and then couldn't find an e-mail with the address. I'd received about six e-invitations to the event that included it and deleted most of them, before another 50 or so e-mails stacked up. But, agreed; there is way too much e-mail in the world; way way too much, so I'm about to quit. I knew this was completely nutty---screeching for the address----as I was doing it, but didn't expect anyone to take me seriously or do anything but delete ASAP, unless, by some miracle, someone saw the screeching in time to send me the address before I found it or missed the event. I finally did find the address, behind about 50 e-mails and made the event, only 10 minutes late. I was glad I went and learned a lot I didn't know, but I had come very close to giving up. After coming home, I again forwarded my concern that the real story of the grassroots organizing behind Community Choice be told, because I think it's really very important that we understand how these victories are won, so as to win again, less arduously, and very important that Gavin not take credit, as he did for finally shutting down one of the so-called peakers polluting Bayview Hunters Point for so long. Also thought it important that the people who've worked really hard to win Community Choice, like yourself and Tom Ammiano, are credited, because everyone needs a bit of credit to keep going. And I included a revision of the paraqraph I'd like to see in the Community Choice press release, for whatever it's worth, having just learned, today, of the imminent bill that might allow new nuclear power plant construction in California. I also sent a note to let folks know that Thursday's KALW "Your Call" will address global warming. But I will call it an e-mail day for now. Excellent idea. I have been under enormous pressure lately (who's not?), and no one needs to know why, so I more or less hid out inside my computer screen, and probably sent too much e-mail, but I'm going to get off all these Green Party and other lists for a while now. Peace---A. On Apr 10, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Eric Brooks wrote: > > anniegarrison(a)mac.com wrote: >> I got half a dozen announcements, so I deleted some and now I >> can't even find one; there are probably 100 messages stacked on >> top of the few I saved. >> _______________________________________________ >> Sustainability mailing list >> Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability >>

1 0

[Sustain] Global Warming, Thursday on Your Call
by Ann Garrison 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

> Barbara Ehrenreich's on KALW's "Your Call" tomorrow. Global > Warming's the topic on Thursday. Google KALW & Your Call for details. > > Also, just FYI: > Alexander Cockburn told me he doesn't believe that global warming > has anything to do with man-made CO2 emissions; he just thinks it's > a planetary process. I don't know enough science to have an > opinion about this but you don't have to convince me one way or > another about that to convince me that it's time to stop all these > lethal gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power plant, home heating, and > auto emissions, or the wars, uranium mining, and rainforest > destruction they're inspiring. > Congrats and much thanks to Dennis and all others who organized > tonight's "Peak Oil" education event at 831 Howard. I was only ten > minutes late; that's an improvement, no? I've always been on the > femme side, which often slows me down, but I raced out the door > tonight, sans lipstick, once I finally dug up the address, 'cause > it was just too important. Peace--A. >

2 1

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] fwd: URGENT: (endorse request) Tomorrow Deadline Comments On State Pro-Nukes Bill
by Susan King 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

yes! sk On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:19 PM, vicki leidner wrote: > yes > > Eric Brooks wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> See forward below. >> >> Can we do a quick consensus on allowing Erika to fax the sample >> letter >> below to the Natural Resources Committee on behalf of the SFGP? >> >> [Aaron Israel wrote] >> >> Tomorrow letters are due to oppose a bill to lift the ban on new >> nuclear plants in California. >> >> If you are an organization, or if you would like to send your own >> letter, the Natural Resources Committee fax is: >> >> 916-319-2192 >> >> The Committee prefers faxes, but if this is not possible letters can >> be emailed to aurora.wallin(a)asm.ca.gov >> <mailto:aurora.wallin@asm.ca.gov> >> >> Letters must be received by 4:00 pm, Wed. April 11th to be >> included in >> Committee packets for hearing next Monday, April 16th. >> >> Questions? Contact Rochelle Becker of the Alliance for Nuclear >> Responsibility and Sierra Club's national chair for radiation and >> toxics, at "rochelle489(a)charter.net <mailto:rochelle489@charter.net>" >> >> sample letter: >> >> Dear Chairwoman Hancock >> >> >> >> I(WE) am writing in opposition to AB 719, Assemblyman Devore's >> bill to >> lift California's ban on the siting of new nuclear plants in >> California. In 1976 our state had the foresight to question the >> federal government's ability to create a permanent and safe solution >> for long term storage of high-level radioactive waste. To undermine >> this protective legislation could have serious health and economic >> impacts to California residents—on whose fragile and seismically >> active coasts radioactive waste continues to accumulate. >> >> >> >> AB 719 states that: >> >> >> >> (f) Current California law prohibits the permitting of any >> new commercial nuclear powerplants until an approved means of >> disposal >> of high-level nuclear waste becomes available. With federal efforts >> well underway to provide an approved means of high-level nuclear >> waste >> disposal, and given that timelines for nuclear powerplant design, >> permitting, construction, on line operation, and first refueling >> would >> likely be in excess of 10 years, by the time a powerplant would be >> ready for operation, an approved high-level nuclear waste disposal >> means will be available. >> >> >> >> The current ban, PRC 25524.2, which AB 719 seeks to overturn, states >> that there can be no new nuclear power plants sited in California >> until: >> >> >> >> (a) The commission (California Energy Commission) >> finds that there has been developed and that the United States >> through its authorized agency has approved and there exists a >> demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level >> nuclear waste. >> >> >> >> As of this date, _none_ of those conditions have been met. The >> Federal government has been trying—for a quarter of a century—since >> the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, to wrestle with >> the unwieldy problem of radioactive waste. When the author of AB >> 719 >> writes, " With federal efforts well underway to provide an approved >> means of high-level nuclear waste disposal…" one wonders where the >> facts are to back up this assumption. The only solution on the >> table, the Yucca Mountain national repository, has been mired in >> scientific, administrative and political problems for decades. The >> Department of Energy has yet to even set a date on which it will >> submit its application for approval by the Nuclear Regulatory >> Commission, and the NRC may be a long way from granting that >> application, as evidenced by these statements from the Las Vegas >> Review-Journal of January 23 ^rd , 2007: >> >> >> >> Ed McGaffigan, a veteran member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, >> said Monday that the Yucca Mountain program is deeply flawed and that >> the Nevada nuclear waste site should be scrapped. >> >> "It may be time to stop digging, and it may be time to rethink," >> McGaffigan said in a critique of the Energy Department program as he >> prepares to retire from the five-member commission that regulates >> nuclear safety…. >> >> "I think Yucca Mountain has been beset by bad law, bad regulatory >> policy, bad science policy, bad personnel policy, bad budget policy >> throughout its history," McGaffigan said. "Every time somebody has >> done something to try to speed things up, it has backfired…. >> >> "Each year that passes, we are not going to get any closer to Yucca >> under the current circumstances," McGaffigan said. >> >> >> >> It is therefore, at this time, wholly inappropriate to consider >> lifting the moratorium on new nuclear power plants in California, as >> conditioned by PRC 25524.2. >> >> >> >> I (WE) urge that this bill, AB 719, be opposed and rejected. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List >> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >> >> > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >

1 0

[Sustain] Oh HELL; where's the address for this event? I can't find it and I've got 14 minutes to get there.
by Ann Garrison 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

1 0

[Sustain] Ideas generated from regional meeting on nuclear resurgence
by Don Eichelberger 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

1 0

[Sustain] Please/kindly REMOVE
by S. Jensen 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

Dear Eric, Don, et. al, Kindly remove my address from your e-list. I subscribed only to a Community Choice Energy list. This other list fills my box with too much mail. I need to focus on a very select few things to achieve success on any, so if you have a message specifically directed to me, personally, I welcome it. Otherwise, please leave me out of this (copious) banter. Thank you! Regards, Stephanie Jensen

1 0