April 2007 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] fwd: URGENT: (endorse request) Tomorrow Deadline Comments On State Pro-Nukes Bill
by Eric Brooks 11 Apr '07

11 Apr '07

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,

1 0

Re: [Sustain] Community Choice press conference; Mary Ratcliff just wrote to ask "Wasn'...
by civillib＠cwnet.com 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

All, I am available to help, as the GPCA press secretary, craft a release. Just give me a day or 2 notice. This is an issue we can disseminate via release to not only local, but statewide media. Feel free to contact me anytime. Peace, Cres At 01:28 PM 4/10/2007 -0700, Don Eichelberger wrote: >All- > >It looks like we have a week to put together a press statement for >the event, and I can help. One focus can be on how local action can >make a statement against the exploitation of Native Lands for any >industrial purpose, which is in line with the Social Justice Plank on >Native Americans of the State Party. >http://www.cagreens.org/platform/platform_justice.shtml#native > >I don't think it would be hard to argue that the city greens would >agree to oppose any energy put in to the SF grid by any source that >violates environmental justice, but I do not believe anything >specific to the subject has passed through general membership >consideration. Should it be a release from the Green Party of SF or >the Sustainability WG? > >I look forward to tonight's event. > >See you there, > >Don > >At 08:41 AM 4/10/2007, ErikaSF(a)aol.com wrote: >>Hi Ann, >>Thanks for your thoughts on this, and for an attempt at a release. >>If no one responded to your thought about writing a release, it is >>because we did not think we needed to. I have written many releases >>for the SF Green Party, and I just write it, send it to the County >>Council for approval, and then distribute it to the media. There is >>no need for the extra step of telling people you might write a release. >>I wish I could help you expand these words into a release, but I >>have to work all day and will not have time. I also know nothing >>about the press conference today. I don't know when it will be, or >>who may be speaking. This is knowledge I would need anyway if I >>were to write a release. >> >>Anyway, thanks for your efforts nevertheless. >> >>Best, >>Erika >>In a message dated 4/9/2007 11:54:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >>anniegarrison(a)mac.com writes: >>I think I not only aimed this at the list but at most everyone else >>in the susainability group, plus Erika (the SF Greens sole >>publicist?), though I know there's at least one more gal in the >>working group, who just moved over here from the East Bay. I really >>wanted an answer 'cause I was still plannin' to try and get myself >>down to City Hall by noon tomorrow. >> >>Has it been postponed? And could someone please remind me of the >>Howard Street address of the Peak Oil Education event tomorrow >>night? 7:30, right? I was planning to try to make both events---on >>time, which, as you know, would be a small miracle, for me. >> >>Please don't make me go racing off to City Hall if this thing has >>been postponed. I'd expect Mary R. to get an announcement of a >>postponement before I would. >> >>This came up because I offered to write a paragraph or so saying >>this means we won't be needing any gas turbine peaker power in >>Bayview Hunters Point or Lakeview-Oceanside-Merced, or any >>coal-fired power from the native Southwest and nobody took me up on >>it, so I hoped that meant somebody had it covered 'cause I don't >>care if I do it; I just hope it's included in the press >>conference. Actually, I'd just as soon see somebody else do it, >>but I will if no one else steps forward. Or maybe I already did: >> >>This legislation means that the CIty and County of San Francisco >>won't be needing any gas turbine peaker power in Bayview Hunters >>Point or Lakeview-Oceanside-Merced, or any coal-fired power from the >>native Four Corners. >> >>There. Done. Can anyone try and get that into the press release? >> >> R&R, for one'n all---A. >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >>See what's free at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>AOL.com. > >

2 1

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Pelosi goes nuclear; Pelosi's in HP 4/14
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

Please note: message attached April 14 --- a Saturday. Not a bad idea. Do you know the time? Sue Pelosi will be w Gavin Newsom April 14th: Invited special guest, T-Third line grand opening celebration, Bayview Hunter's Point, San Francisco, California http://www.pelosiwatch.org/article.php?id=2930 This might be a place to launch a presence with a few signs; it is after all "Step It Up" Day http://stepitup2007.org/ and http://www.nowarnowarming.org/ They could say: Nancy Nuclear Power is not Clean Energy Solar, Wind & Tidal Power Not Nuclear Nancy Take Nuclear Power off the Table etc. Jim Pelosi will be w Gavin Newsom April 14th: Invited special guest, T-Third line grand opening celebration, Bayview Hunter's Point, San Francisco, California http://www.pelosiwatch.org/article.php?id=2930 This might be a place to launch a presence with a few signs; it is after all "Step It Up" Day http://stepitup2007.org/ and http://www.nowarnowarming.org/ They could say: Nancy Nuclear Power is not Clean Energy Solar, Wind & Tidal Power Not Nuclear Nancy Take Nuclear Power off the Table etc. Jim Ann Garrison <anniegarrison(a)mac.com> wrote: Re Al Gore, and the revival of the nuclear power industry, which I personally believe to be the main thing the Kyoto Protocol has accomplished, besides the rise of mighty Nuclear Japan, which nobody talks about, see Counterpunch: "How Global Warming And Al Gore May Rescue the Nuclear Power Industry": http://www.counterpunch.org/nukes.html On Apr 10, 2007, at 12:15 PM, nancy lewis wrote: > Dear Jim, > > I too read the article that all of the front > runners, Give them Hell Hilary, Senator Obama and John > Edwards and Speaker Pelosi, supports Nuclear Power > plants as a way forward here, to help solve our energy > crisis. This is the height of hypocrisy for these > individuals who will not take any options of the table > with regard to Iran and its generation of power from > nuclear power plants to then turn around and want more > nuclear power plants here. Nuclear power isn't > "Green" technology. The Sierra club locally and our > local peace groups need to get involved and visit > Speaker Pelosi on this latest issue. B. Boxer isn't > endorsing this and I'm not sure what A. Gore is > saying. > > One of the many reasons I remain a Green is this > issue. Nuclear power isn't a solution to the energy > crisis anymore than continuing the occupation of Iraq > will provide security to the Middle east by the US. > Greens need to be educating the public locally about > this extremely deadly, dangerous idea. > Nancy Lewis > lcuretiam2000(a)yahoo.com > > --- Jim Dorenkott wrote: > >> Thanks for posting this. The pro-nuclear power >> people are pushing hard. There is legislation in the >> CA hopper to eliminate the 30+ year old ban on new >> nuclear power plants. KGO talk host Dr. Bill >> Wattenburg was ranting and organizing on behalf of >> it Sunday night. Too many callers agreed with him. I >> don't hear the correlative on our progressive >> airwaves. >> >> We need an overarching coalition or network of >> organizations who can begin responding. Locally here >> we should form a working group or sub-working group >> to connect with Sierra Club and other anti-nuclear >> power forces to coalesce. Part of their strategy >> should be visible visits to Pelosi's office to let >> her know how out of step she is with her >> constitutency on this. >> >> I think we need to respond quickly to this. >> Thoughts? >> >> Jim >> >> pamndave(a)speakeasy.net wrote: 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. >> > === message truncated ===> > _______________________________________________ >> 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 --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

2 1

Re: [Sustain] Community Choice press conference; Mary Ratcliff just wrote to ask "Wasn'...
by ErikaSF＠aol.com 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

Hi Ann, Thanks for your thoughts on this, and for an attempt at a release. If no one responded to your thought about writing a release, it is because we did not think we needed to. I have written many releases for the SF Green Party, and I just write it, send it to the County Council for approval, and then distribute it to the media. There is no need for the extra step of telling people you might write a release. I wish I could help you expand these words into a release, but I have to work all day and will not have time. I also know nothing about the press conference today. I don't know when it will be, or who may be speaking. This is knowledge I would need anyway if I were to write a release. Anyway, thanks for your efforts nevertheless. Best, Erika In a message dated 4/9/2007 11:54:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, anniegarrison(a)mac.com writes: I think I not only aimed this at the list but at most everyone else in the susainability group, plus Erika (the SF Greens sole publicist?), though I know there's at least one more gal in the working group, who just moved over here from the East Bay. I really wanted an answer 'cause I was still plannin' to try and get myself down to City Hall by noon tomorrow. Has it been postponed? And could someone please remind me of the Howard Street address of the Peak Oil Education event tomorrow night? 7:30, right? I was planning to try to make both events---on time, which, as you know, would be a small miracle, for me. Please don't make me go racing off to City Hall if this thing has been postponed. I'd expect Mary R. to get an announcement of a postponement before I would. This came up because I offered to write a paragraph or so saying this means we won't be needing any gas turbine peaker power in Bayview Hunters Point or Lakeview-Oceanside-Merced, or any coal-fired power from the native Southwest and nobody took me up on it, so I hoped that meant somebody had it covered 'cause I don't care if I do it; I just hope it's included in the press conference. Actually, I'd just as soon see somebody else do it, but I will if no one else steps forward. Or maybe I already did: This legislation means that the CIty and County of San Francisco won't be needing any gas turbine peaker power in Bayview Hunters Point or Lakeview-Oceanside-Merced, or any coal-fired power from the native Four Corners. There. Done. Can anyone try and get that into the press release? R&R, for one'n all---A. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

2 1

[Sustain] Invitation- April 10 biofuels event-TONIGHT!
by Don Eichelberger 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

1 0

[Sustain] VERY Important - Postponed!: Press Conference For Solar-Wind Powered S.F. POSTPONED
by Eric Brooks 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

*VERY Important - Postponed!: Press Conference For Solar-Wind Powered S.F. Postponed!* Hi all, Due to circumstances completely out of our control, the introduction of the Community Choice solar and wind energy legislation mentioned below will be briefly delayed until next Tuesday, April 17. Please do not show up today, as no event will taking place. We are uncertain as to whether or not the City Hall press conference to celebrate this legislation will be held on that Tuesday or on a different date and time. Please stay tuned for a more specific announcement. Our apologies for the false alarm! Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City Previously, Our City wrote: Next Tuesday, April 10, 12 Noon, at the Polk Street entrance of San Francisco City Hall - At long last there will be a historic announcement of the introduction of the final implementing legislation for the Community Choice Energy project, to make San Francisco 50% Solar and Wind powered within the next decade! Join Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Ross Mirkarimi, Local Power, Our City, Sierra Club, Greenpeace and many others, as we announce the introduction of this bold new project! /_ _/_DETAILS_ WHEN: 12 Noon, Tuesday, April 10 WHERE: San Francisco City Hall - Polk Street Side (off Polk between Grove & McAllister - From Civic Center MUNI/BART cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall) WEAR: A sky blue shirt or jacket if you have one - for visual effect (we have some t-shirts available) _RSVP:_ To coordinate with us, if you plan to attend, please reply to this message with 'I'll Be There' in the subject heading and your contact information in the reply. _WHY THIS EVENT IS SO IMPORTANT_ Historic Vote At Last Approaches After many years of hard work by Local Power, Our City, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, The SF Green Party, Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Ross Mirkarimi, and many other organizers, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is at last only a month away from a final vote on the project plan for Community Choice Energy, which will make San Francisco the most Solar and Wind powered city in the world, running on 50% clean renewable energy, within the next decade. PG&E Could Addict Us To Dirty Energy If We Don't Act Now! The California Public Utilities Commission has given PG&E the opening to beat renewable energy to the punch, and force every city in California to pay for 8 new fossil fuel power plants, /and a dangerous 30 year extension of its nuclear power production at Diablo Canyon/. PG&E is about to join the Williams company to bring in massive amounts of liquid natural gas for electricity production through a huge pipeline planned to be built from Coos Bay Oregon to Northern California. _DETAILS_ WHEN: 12 Noon, Tuesday, April 10 WHERE: San Francisco City Hall - Polk Street Side (off Polk between Grove & McAllister - From Civic Center MUNI/BART cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall) WEAR: A sky blue shirt or jacket if you have one - for visual effect (we have some t-shirts available) _RSVP:_ To coordinate with us, if you plan to attend, please reply to this message with 'I'll Be There' in the subject heading and your contact information in the reply. See you there! peace, Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City http://our-city.org 415-756-8844 /This update posted by: Our City 1028-A Howard St. San Francisco, CA 94103 415-756-8844 For more information about Our City campaigns go to: http://www.our-city.org info(a)our-city.org ### If you have joined this list in error and wish to unsubscribe, send a reply to info(a)our-city.org with the word 'Unsubscribe' in the subject line./

1 0

[Sustain] Community Choice press conference; Mary Ratcliff just wrote to ask "Wasn't the Tuesday press conference postponed?"
by Ann Garrison 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

I think I not only aimed this at the list but at most everyone else in the susainability group, plus Erika (the SF Greens sole publicist?), though I know there's at least one more gal in the working group, who just moved over here from the East Bay. I really wanted an answer 'cause I was still plannin' to try and get myself down to City Hall by noon tomorrow. Has it been postponed? And could someone please remind me of the Howard Street address of the Peak Oil Education event tomorrow night? 7:30, right? I was planning to try to make both events---on time, which, as you know, would be a small miracle, for me. Please don't make me go racing off to City Hall if this thing has been postponed. I'd expect Mary R. to get an announcement of a postponement before I would. This came up because I offered to write a paragraph or so saying this means we won't be needing any gas turbine peaker power in Bayview Hunters Point or Lakeview-Oceanside-Merced, or any coal-fired power from the native Southwest and nobody took me up on it, so I hoped that meant somebody had it covered 'cause I don't care if I do it; I just hope it's included in the press conference. Actually, I'd just as soon see somebody else do it, but I will if no one else steps forward. Or maybe I already did: This legislation means that the CIty and County of San Francisco won't be needing any gas turbine peaker power in Bayview Hunters Point or Lakeview-Oceanside-Merced, or any coal-fired power from the native Four Corners. There. Done. Can anyone try and get that into the press release? R&R, for one'n all---A.

1 0

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Fwd: SF Dept. of Environment Giving Away Free Canvass Bags
by Ann Garrison 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

May I forward this to Mary Ratcliff and Dr. Ahimsa Porter-Sumchai, not to start a fight, but just because they have a very different view of the local Sierra Club. I believe Ahimsa joined the Board to try to influence it, but don't quote me on that. I did indeed find a local Sierra chapter on one of the Great Lakes, which had chosen "clean coal" as its solution, but you gotta remember that's Obama's state. And, like I said, they seem to be doing very well at working with the natives in the Four Corners. I also just looked up Sierra Club and Kyoto and found Karl Pope's article, "The Problem with Kyoto," much of which I agree with: http://www.sierraclub.org/carlpope/2007/03/trouble-with-kyoto.asp There seems to be quite a bit of variance between one Sierra Club and another, and they're certainly nothing, nothing like that despicable Apollo Alliance. R&R for one'n all---A.G. On Apr 8, 2007, at 1:46 PM, John Rizzo wrote: > > Two statements that I must take issue with: > >> The Sierra Club seems sorta >> kinda OK there, in the native Four Corners, but here, Mary R. says >> they promoted Lennar's development in the shipyard. > > This is a false statement. We absolutely do not support or promote > Lennar. > >> And, in Obama's >> Illinois, around the Great Lakes, some local Sierra Club chose "clean >> coal" as their greenhouse gas limiting solution. > > I don't know of ANY organization that has put more staff time, > volunteer > time, and money into fighting coal nationwide than the Sierra Club. > This > includes Illinois. Here are some Illinois victories against coal: > > http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp# > IllinoisTaylorvilleEnergyCenter > > The Sierra Club spends a lot of resources and effort fighting new coal > plants and the myth of "clean coal." Coal is also tied to the Sierra > Club's Mercury and Clean Water campaigns. > > See this web site for a great deal of information about coal and Club > efforts: > > http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/ > > One of the Sierra Club's campaigns is called "Stopping the Coal Rush" > led by the Club's Environmental Law Program. > > At the web site, be sure to sign the petition to end mountaintop coal > mining that is literally destroying Appalachia. > > John Rizzo > > PS. For the past three years, the local Bay Area chapter has been > expending a lot of staff and volunteer to pass CCA (Tom and Ross), 360 > MW renewable energy. It will finally be introduced at the Board of > Supervisors on Tuesday. We are also working to get CCA implemented in > other cities across California. > > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

4 5

[Sustain] I'm not trying to start an argument here; just trying to get to the bottom of a few things.
by Ann Garrison 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf060810.htm It does seem that Illinois---but not the Sierra Club----bid $80 for this clean coal business, against Ohio and Kentucky, the other members of the Peabody Coal Triangle. And, like I said, I found one town in Illinois where the local Sierra Club was celebrating its choice of clean coal as a global warming solution. One town. Aren't local Sierra Clubs, like PIRG organizations, more or less free to go off on their own locally? And Mary Ratcliff and Ahimsa do seem to disagree with you, John, about this, so you might want to get in touch with them. And, like I said, they seem to be on the right side in the Four Corners. I'm not arguing; I'm really asking people to help me with more info than I have. I think we're all in agreement about this disgusting Apollo Alliance. I'd like some more info as to what to make of the Environmental Defense Fund, which John McCain sent me a fundraising letter for, trying to sell me a canvas bag for a membership. One thing clear to me is that anything with the term "Gen" in it is some sort of federally sponsored evil. ---A.G.

3 2

Re: [Sustain] [Transpo] Excellent Short Audio On The Biofuels Myth
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

I have seen that Eric has responded to this, but I'm putting my replies below John-Marc's responses, between the =...= Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 02:01:58AM -0700, Eric Brooks wrote: > We can't get around conservation of energy here. The algae has to be fed > with something. The carbon has to come from somewhere. There is no free > lunch. Hence anything that will give us massive amounts of burnable > fuels, will have massive amounts of impact on the planetary ecosystem. The energy is solar, and the carbon comes from carbon dioxide. The cellulosic ethanol by itself won't be sufficient to replace our current oil needs, but every little bit might make the difference between a gradual "powerdown" in a peak oil scenario and total collapse. Cellulose (stalks) is essentially a free byproduct of growing food crops, and the energy we put into growing them already (for the food) is currently wasted. It's like the difference between letting the sunlight heat up your roof or putting on some solar panels to take advantage of it. =David Fridley is giving his presentation on the myth of biofuels Tuesday during our CC meeting. I'm very familiar with what he says. He reminds us that there is no such thing as a "free byproduct of growing food crops," as the detritus of food crops is essential for the renewal of the soil, especially in a system that of necessity is going to have to rely less and less on artificial fertilizer inputs.= > And as my previous post noted, the players that are getting into this > biofuels game are some of the most evil people on the planet. In a total collapse of civilization, even evil folks wouldn't be able to enjoy their current lifestyle. > They mentioned algae. They dovetailed it and all of the other crops with > genetic engineering. This stuff is all bad news that must be stopped > before it distracts us from taking real action to end the climate > crisis, while we instead wait a precious, deadly, decade or two for some > magic bullet that will allow us all to drive cars. This is a false dichotomy; there's no reason we can't both build mass transit and also develop biofuels. The amount of money necessary for either project is tiny compared to the cost of the war. Biofuels aren't a "distraction" from building mass transit when the public barely knows about them. I think in a poll, the public would prefer mass transit. > Why are we talking about convoluted esoteric ways to get liquid carbon > fuels out of algae, when we could meet our energy and transportation > needs with solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc. and electrified mass transit? Liquid carbon fuels are convenient, and more technologically practical to develop than other high density fuel storage options such as hydrogen or high density batteries. Almost all our existing infrastructure is built on them, so the transition would be much cheaper. =Eric, I think you are very unrealistic about the potential of solar, wind, tidal, and wave. Currently, all those "alternative" forms of energy generation account for less than one percent of the energy that is generated nationally. I think you need to start working the term "carbon tax" into your discussions, as we need to drastically reduce the amount of energy that we are using.= > These are off the shelf, affordable technologies, that can be employed > now; not speculative scientific processes which seek some sleight of > hand with which to defy the basic laws of physics. Which basic laws of physics are you referring to? Biofuels don't violate any of them any more than other energy sources that are ultimately solar powered. =Again, solar and wind and all those others account for less than one percent of our current energy generation.= JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

4 9