November 2008 - Sustainability

[Sustain] Fwd: Obama Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"
by Eric Brooks 30 Nov '08

30 Nov '08

*/ /* */ /**/Spilling the Beans/, November 2008* (This newsletter is reprinted from Jeffrey Smith's new blog on Huffington Post <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/obamas-team-includes-dang_b_147…>.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Subscribe to e-newsletter <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gmfree,…> /Spilling the Beans/* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Obama’s team includes dangerous biotech “Yes Men”* Biotech “Yes Men” on Obama’s team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic “group think” that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations—where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology. Clinton’s agriculture secretary Dan Glickman <http://books.google.com/books?id=kqjaCIT3A2IC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=If+you%…> saw it first hand: “It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view” When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he “got slapped around <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2308> a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration.” By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist. * The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/EducationalMaterials/January2008/ind…> show that the opposite is true. * We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average /reduction/ in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers. * George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants. * Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development <http://www.agassessment.org/> has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger. *Food Safety Lies* Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA’s 1992 GMO policy, which stated: *“The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”* The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists that GM foods were /substantially different/, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public. Their concerns <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/DocumentFiles/145.pdf> stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and “references to the unintended negative effects” of genetic engineering “were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement,” in spite of scientists’ protests. “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?” wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. “It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.” *Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs* Thanks to the FDA’s “promote biotech” policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/will-genetically-modified_b_145…> from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been _linked_ to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe. At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA’s new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy. Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC. _Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team._ *Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk* Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1—a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com <http://www.yourmilkondrugs.com/>.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling. As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as /not/ using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company’s request. But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn’t change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff’s audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect. _Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com <http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2409>, is being considered for Obama’s USDA Secretary._ Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA’s own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto’s own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a “white paper” urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor. *Betting on biotech is “Bad-idea virus”* For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/FG31Dk01.html>, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, “This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials.” He said <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-08-18-biotech-grant_x.htm> it “remains a money-losing, niche industry.” One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa’s governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year. Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama’s USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack’s biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn. *Change, Truth, Hope* I don’t know Barack Obama’s position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081123/BUSINESS01/811230309/1029…>, there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist’s full court spin. - His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops “have provided enormous benefits” to farmers and expressed confidence “that we can continue to modify plants safely.” On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants “stringent tests for environmental and health effects” and “stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.” There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors. *President* *Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.* Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration. (I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.) To sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful, click here <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/MandatoryLabelingPet…>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ © copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008 Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication /Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods/, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, /Seeds of Deception/, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/>, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/> to learn more about how to avoid GM foods. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ */Spilling the Beans/* is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/>. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants. Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce issues of Spilling the Beans in whole or in part. Just email us at column(a)seedsofdeception.com <mailto:column@seedsofdeception.com> to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track. The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly welcome your donations and support. Go to www.responsibletechnology.org <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/> or click here <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=171> if you'd like to make a tax-deductible donation. Click here <http://www.tccouncil.org/institute_membership> if you would like to become a member of the Institute. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *//_ _**Send this Email to a Friend* <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/showObject.cfm?sendArticle=1&indep…> *Write a Comment on This Email* <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/includes/showObject.cfm?independentPage=wri…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email was sent by The Institute for Responsible Technology <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/>, located at PO Box 469 - - Fairfield, IA 52556 - United States of America. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] FW: [gpsmc-d] Tabling at Conference "Challenging Corporate Control of Water"
by Martin Zehr 30 Nov '08

30 Nov '08

We have approval to set up a table at the conference on Tuesday, December 2nd that begins at 7:00 PM. I can run off the brochure and have some other GPUS stuff. make arrangements with me directly if you can runoff more brochures or have other things that we can use for the table. Mato Ska San Francisco

1 0

[Sustain] Greens Oppose Push for Nuclear
by Martin Zehr 30 Nov '08

30 Nov '08

GREENS OPPOSE PUSH FOR NUCLEARThe Green Party of the United States’ (GPUS) Eco-Action Committee rejects President-elect Barack Obama’s reckless support for new nuclear power plants, as such an agenda poses unacceptable health and environmental risks and would be fiscally irresponsible in the extreme. All of the processes associated with nuclear power are dangerous, from the mining of uranium to the transportation and disposal of radioactive waste. Uranium mining is implicated in endocrine disorders and cancers among people working in or living near the mines, and clusters of childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer have been found in people living near nuclear power sites even when the plants have not had a major accident. (The number of "minor" accidents, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calls "events," is staggering.)Dr. Helen Caldicott, a physician who has devoted her life to researching the effects of the nuclear power and weapons industry on human health, lists some specific effects of carcinogenic elements associated with nuclear plants and uranium mining: iodine-131 - thyroid cancer; strontium-90 - b reast cancer, bone cancer, leukemia; cesium-137 - sarcoma (malignant muscle cancer); plutonium-239 - liver cancer, bone cancer, testicular cancer, lung cancer and birth defects. More nuclear plants would increase the risk of accidents. Japan has experienced deaths at its new reprocessing plant in Rokkosho, and the Mayak reprocessing plant in Russia has a long history of accidents, including one which killed at least 200 people and exposed hundreds of thousands of others to radiation. These, plus the thousands of deaths and devastation caused by Chernobyl’s meltdown, and the 15-year, billion dollar attempt to clean up the catastrophe at Three Mile Island, are sobering cautions.Radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants remains toxic to humans for over 100,000 years. There is no way to store this waste safely. Already, all six of the “low-level” nuclear waste dumps in the U.S. have leaked. The plain fact is, there are no technological quick fixes to isolate nuclear waste from the biosphere for the durations of its hazardous life. T herefore, rather than producing more, it is essential that the generation of nuclear wastes be halted. Enormous and long-lasting health and environmental dangers alone make nuclear power unfeasible. Cost in dollars is another factor, with each new nuclear power plant expected to cost at least nine billion dollars. In a recent paper, “Forget Nuclear,” Amory Lovins, one of the nation’s foremost energy-policy analysts, states that nuclear energy costs twice as much per kilowatt hour to produce as wind and at least seven times the cost of implementing end-use efficiency technologies. He estimates that efficiency alone could reduce energy consumption by three times nuclear power’s market share, and that wind power alone could double the nation’s electricity output. Because of the high risks and high costs involved, the nuclear power industry has taxpayers subsidize nuclear plants. In 2005, taxpayer subsidies to the industry were raised to 60-90% of the entire projected cost of nuclear projects. Yet, due to regulatory changes made in the 1990s, taxpayers have little say over the licensing of nuclear plants. Rather than relying on more nuclear power , the Green Party of the United States calls for a moratorium on new nuclear power plants, the early retirement of nuclear power reactors, and the phase-out of technologies that use or produce nuclear waste, such as nuclear waste incinerators, food irradiators, and all commercial and military uses of depleted uranium. We also oppose the export of nuclear technologies or their wastes to other nations.It is possible to achieve energy independence, to effectively address climate change, and to reduce energy consumption by 50% in 20 years through the strategic use of alternative energies such as wind and solar, and through increased efficiency and conservation. (Greens also emphasize taking great care to minimize any negative environmental impacts, even from such "clean" technol ogies as wind and solar.)Nuclear power is as inimical to the web of life on Earth as it has ever been. If the nuclear agenda is allowed to go forward, our continent will be poisoned by radioactivity for hundreds of generations. We have a grave responsibility to ourselves and the future to reject nuclear power as any part of a sane solution to our energy crisis.

1 0

[Sustain] FW: San Francisco Water Conference- Dec. 2
by Eric Brooks 27 Nov '08

27 Nov '08

m_zehr(a)hotmail.com wrote: See attached. Local conference this Tuesday, Dec 2, on challenging corporate control of water.

1 0

[Sustain] Challenging Corporate Control of Water
by Martin Zehr 27 Nov '08

27 Nov '08

Challenging Corporate Control of Water No! to Privatization, Yes! to Community Control of Water Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 Time: 7:00 – 9:30 PM Venue: Mission Cultural Center, 2868 Mission Street, San Francisco On December 2nd and 3rd, global corporations will meet in San Francisco at a conference called “Corporate Water Footprinting: Towards a Sustainable Water Strategy,” to discuss their use of water, and ostensibly, outline water conservation strategies. A conference geared towards sustainable use of water is indeed welcome, but having the largest water abusers in charge is not. Given the central role of water-intensive companies in the conference – Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Nestlé Waters, MillerCoors, Intel, Dean Foods, General Electric, ConAgra Foods – and the glaring absence of perspectives from those without access to water – it is clear that the conference is designed primarily to greenwash the practices of these very companies that have, in many cases, led to water scarcity and water contamination resulting in the denial of people’s access to water. Access to water is a fundamental human right. With more than a billion people – about one in six – lacking access to safe drinking water, it is imperative that the international community act urgently to meet the growing challenge of providing access to water to everyone. Join us to challenge the corporate agenda of privatization of water and place the focus on strengthening public institutions so that they do what they are supposed to do – deliver a public good to the public at large. Speakers will include: Maude Barlow, Blue Planet Project, Council of Canadians, Special Advisor on Water to the United Nations Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food and Water Watch Caleen Sisk-Franco, Chief, Winnemum Wintu Tribe, Indigenous Environmental Network Amit Srivastava, Coordinator, International Campaign Against Coca-Cola and India Resource Center Sponsored by: Blue Planet Project/Council of Canadians, Food and Water Watch, India Resource Center, Indigenous Environmental Network, International Campaign Against Coca-Cola Initial endorsers include: Alliance for Democracy, Center for Political Education, Design Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Global Exchange, Movement Generation, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, International Forum on Globalization, International Rivers, Oakland Institute, Other Worlds, People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic Rights (PODER), Ruckus Society, The Public Trust Alliance, Peoples Health Movement and and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. The event is free and accessible. For more info or to endorse, contact Jeff at jconant(a)fwwatch.org or Amit at info(a)indiaresource.org See our position paper at http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2008/challengecorporatecontrol.… FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. India Resource Center is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of corporate accountability, human rights, labor rights, social and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

1 0

Re: [Sustain] [TrueGreen_NoNukes] Re: Obama on energy
by Don Eichelberger 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

Here is my response to Obama on his web site inviting responses. This is a personal response, and not party affiliated. In ooking at it afterward, it seems almost like a prayer: I applaud your efforts so far to set up mechanisms for tapping group creativity and giving personal responses via the Internet. Hope you're keeping up. I am very happy to see the President-elect calling for massive spending aimed at creating the jobs that will be needed to build the future. Make this a jobs program to build the next bubble in sustainable alternatives to the way things are. Building that future will simultaneously address climate change and economic instability. I am a long time Green Party activist, a founding member of the California Green party and until recently a co-coordinator of its Green Issues Working Group. In that regard, I hope President-elect Obama will be as conciliatory and willing to reach across differences to his left as he is to his right. I have to I say see little evidence of that in his new cabinet or economic team. I admit that Clinton veterans are pretty much the only Democrats who possess beltway experience. But people like Ed Markey, Cynthia McKinney and even Ralph Nader, though from farther to the left also have beltway experience, and should be tapped for at least some admininsration position or advisory roles in environmental, energy and consumer affairs. I also strongly oppose carbon Cap and Trade. I do not trust free marketeers to handle them responsibly. I would suggest a two cent per pound carbon excise tax on all carbon emissions, from whatever source, to go in to renewable energy and public transit funds. It could raise fourty cents from each gallon of gasoline sold, alone while encouraging conservation. I could go on, but I am wary you can keep up and don't want to add to your struggles. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for listening. Abalone Alliance wrote: > This link is to Obama's official website > <http://www.change.gov/page/s/energyenviro> to make suggestions and > comments on for energy! > > Go there and suggest Ed Markey for being the next Secretary for the > Department of Energy! > > r > > Susan Swift wrote: > >> In response: >> >> Yes, we know that Obama is at best neutral on nuclear. He lives in a >> state that is pretty dependent on nuclear power and he has chosen as >> one of his chief energy advisors Daniel Kammen (UC Berkeley)- who >> advocates the use of nuclear power as an "appropriate technology." >> >> Nonetheless, until recently, Joe Biden has been outspokenly opposed to >> nuclear power. We can hope that he will continue to be on our side, >> and will speak to the issue when he takes his seat as vice president. >> >> And, we should remember that no one president or any other leader will >> perfectly reflect our values. Now is not the time to relinquish power >> to someone we 'kind of trust,' but it is the moment to become ever >> more active while the doors to power are slightly ajar... >> Susan >> > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/message/79;_ylc=X3oDMTMxZ2t…> > (3) Reply (via web post) > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJvNTY3Y212B…> > | Start a new topic > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMzVlY2JvB…> > > Messages > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOG8zO…> > | Files > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnNXNnYXF2…> > | Photos > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMDhobjg…> > | Links > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJnY3QzcHNy…> > | Database > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZzUxb…> > | Polls > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJndjloa2Jl…> > | Members > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZTExNG…> > | Calendar > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbW9yc…> > > Yahoo! Groups > <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYXBtbjdyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE5O…> > > Change settings via the Web > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOWpkNmZ2B…> > (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest > <mailto:TrueGreen_NoNukes-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> > | Switch format to Traditional > <mailto:TrueGreen_NoNukes-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> > > Visit Your Group > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMWRrdmJyBF9TAz…> > | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | > Unsubscribe > <mailto:TrueGreen_NoNukes-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=> > Recent Activity > > Visit Your Group > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrueGreen_NoNukes;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaGloM3Q2BF9TAz…> > > Give Back > > Yahoo! for Good > <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJucHJycTU1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSW…> > > Get inspired > > by a good cause. > > Y! Toolbar > > Get it Free! > <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJwaGoxa2g5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSW…> > > easy 1-click access > > to your groups. > > Yahoo! Groups > > Start a group > <http://groups.yahoo.com/start;_ylc=X3oDMTJwM3VidXRwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzME…> > > in 3 easy steps. > > Connect with others. > > . > > __,_._,___

1 0

[Sustain] Newsom Appoints Juliet Ellis To SFPUC
by Eric Brooks 23 Nov '08

23 Nov '08

Hey all, Newsom finally sent one new pick for SFPUC commissioner to the Board of Supervisors. This was in communications reported on the latest Board agenda for Nov 25: 081476 [Petitions and Communications] Petitions and Communications received from November 11, 2008 through November 17, 2008 for reference by the President to Committee considering related matters or to be ordered filed by the Clerk on November 25, 2008. From Office of the Mayor, submitting appointment of Juliet Ellis as a member of the Public Utilities Commission, effective November 14, 2008 to fill seat 2, term expires on August 1, 2010. Copy: Clerk of the Board, Committee Clerk(2) I searched Juliet Ellis in San Francisco and found the following: http://urbanhabitat.org/about http://urbanhabitat.org/uh/newfront If this is the correct Juliet Ellis, as seems likely, she looks pretty ironclad against negative criticism. cheers Eric

1 0

[Sustain] Urgent! Call Today - Ask Supe Mirkarimi To Amend Flawed Power Plant Legislation
by Eric Brooks 22 Nov '08

22 Nov '08

Hi all, It is urgent that you each call Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi's office today at 415-554-7630 (please mention your group affiliation) with the following message: "Please introduce amendments to Sophie Maxwell's Power Plant Conditional Use legislation to make certain that any Combustion Turbine 'Peaker' installation would have to face the same series of conditional use hearings as all other power plants, and that renewable energy projects will be protected." Here's why this phone call is so critical.. The deeply flawed legislation discussed below is going to the full Board of Supervisors tomorrow! Last Wednesday, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, in a very cleverly manipulated hearing on her legislation for conditional use requirements on power plants, got the Planning Department to make statements which created the illusion that the measure will put the Combustion Turbine 'Peaker'(CTs) project through the same conditional use process at Planning as all other plants. This is simply not the case. Planning asserted only that Maxwell's legislation 'applies' to the CTs. They were referring to the final clause of the measure which says that the Supervisors have to use the same -criteria- when considering the CTs. However, this in no way whatsoever forces the CTs through full CU hearings at the Planning Commission. This language simply leaves it up to the Supervisors, with no requirement for hearings of any kind, to decide autonomously that previous flawed State approvals are adequate and immediately pass a polluting CT contract with a simple majority vote. And it will be even easier for them to do this if Maxwell's measure successfully blocks all other alternatives, while the State once again lays pressure on the City to have fossil fuel generation. The polluting Peakers would then be the -only- option left. And the last time that the Supervisors were faced with a no-other-options vote like that, they voted 8-3 to pass the Peaker contract. The legislation also has serious flaws that will interfere with the rapid construction of renewable energy projects which are crucial to stopping the Peakers and closing the Mirant plant quickly. This is all very dangerous to the fight to stop and close fossil power plants in San Francisco. The SF Green Party has helped write an amendment that will repair the legislation and make certain that the Peakers would indeed have to face the same series of conditional use hearings as all other power plants, and that renewable energy projects will be protected. But we have a very serious problem. We have asked Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to introduce the amendment, however he is reluctant to do so because he watched the hearing and received the mistaken impression from a couple of public comments that the entire Southeast side of the City has joined with Potrero Hill residents in unity to support Maxwell's legislation. It is absolutely crucial that your groups notify Supervisor Mirkarimi today and ask him to: "Please introduce amendments to Sophie Maxwell's Power Plant Conditional Use legislation to make certain that any Combustion Turbine 'Peaker' installation would have to face the same series of conditional use hearings as all other power plants, and that renewable energy projects will be protected." You can reach Supervisor Mirkarimi's office at: 415-554-7630 If you have questions, please call me at any time this weekend through Monday. peace Eric Brooks San Francisco Green Party 415-756-8844 -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

3 2

[Sustain] Obama on energy
by Don Eichelberger 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

I want to remain hopeful that Obama really will signify a change. But this taped message to the Governors' Conference on Climate Change hosted by Arnold Schwarzenegger will raise flags. He seems to see nuclear as a "part of the answer" to climate change, and so sees nuclear promoters as allies, having a "friend in the White House" See for yurself at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJkt Why do I feel weird about this? Don

1 0

[Sustain] USDA Rushing Dangerous New GE Food & Drug Rules
by Eric Brooks 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

Hi all, This one is a big deal. Please take a critical second to sign the petition and pass it on. http://ga3.org/campaign/GMOregs?rk=S1eJFssqYeHjW If you do not wish to receive emails sent from your peers on behalf of this organization, please click this link: http://ga3.org/cfs/opt-out-taf.tcl?friend_email=sustainability%40sfgreens%2… ****************************** This email is Powered by Convio, Inc. http://www.convio.com ******************************

1 0