December 2008 - Sustainability

[Sustain] NYC Transit Proposal Would Make Buses/Rail Largely Free & Still Gain Revenue
by Eric Brooks 28 Dec '08

28 Dec '08

Hey all, There's a very interesting new proposal for fees and funding for autos and mass transit in New York City which would make buses and rail transit nearly free while still gaining large revenues for the entire New York transportation system. The proponents have crunched numbers and compiled spread sheets and projections to back up their assumptions. I'm not sure whether this model could be directly transfered to San Francisco, but it is worth looking at for a concept to switch to free mass transit without losing any revenue. (The taxi surcharge looks a bit daunting, but would be feasible and necessary because of a sharp increase in taxi use that would otherwise result under the plan if there were no surcharge.) To get started on the basics go to: http://nnyn.org/kheelplan/kheel_plan2.html Or if you receive information better by hearing it described verbally go to: http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=30139 and fast forward the program to the 14 min, 15 sec mark, to hear an interview with one of the project's proponents. cheers Eric -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] HUGE NEWS! Supe Maxwell Just Introduced Clean Energy Act At Board!
by Eric Brooks 18 Dec '08

18 Dec '08

Hey all, San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has just introduced the Clean Energy Act as legislation at the Board of Supervisors! The legislation will direct the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to draft a new plan to close the last remaining fossil fuel power plant in the City (the Mirant Potrero Hill plant) and to draw up a new energy action plan which adopts the Prop H mandates; replacing Mirant with only renewables and efficiency. PG&E is going to lean -hard- on the Supervisors so we must not take -any- of them for granted. Any of you who have good relationships with any of them should make contact right away to solidify their support. We must get 8 secure votes at the Board of Supervisors to ensure that the Mayor's veto will be over-ridden and the measure will become law. This move by Maxwell wouldn't have been possible without all of our hard work. Our campaign laid strong political ground for this moment. See Maxwell's legislation attached. Here is an article about the measure: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/index?blogid=55 Tuesday, December 16, 2008 The power plant issue that won't die <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=3…> Sup. Maxwell. Liz Mangelsdorf/The Chronicle Sup. Maxwell. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has made good on her promise to keep the Board of Supervisors involved in decisions <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/BAPM14C7CE.DTL> surrounding the future of a polluting power plant in Potrero Hill. On Tuesday, Maxwell introduced a measure that would make it city policy to close the plant at the earliest possible date, and to replace the power generated at the plant with clean resources. It calls on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to create a plan for doing so. But the measure goes even further. It sets aggressive clean energy goals for San Francisco, mandating that the city meet 51 percent of its electricity needs with clean resources by 2017; 75 percent by 2030; and 100 percent by 2040. Those numbers sound familiar, you say? Well, it's because they're exactly what was called for in Proposition H, the public power initiative that voters rejected in November <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/BATD13RC1Q.DTL>. At issue is the Mirant Power Plant in Potrero Hill, which was set to close and be replaced <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/BACF13S15S.DTL> with a newer facility that would only run when necessary. But this summer, the mayor and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which regulates the plant, changed their minds, saying it didn't make sense to build a new fossil-fuel burning facility when renewable energy sources are gaining ground. Maxwell and other supervisors balked at the change <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=31999>, pointing out that they have been working with city officials and the community for years on a plan to close the plant <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/05/EDS110FFM6.DTL>. They also question whether the retrofit will actually lead to acceptable emission reductions. The board last month killed a measure that would have allowed the mayor to move forward with the proposed retrofit. But state regulators won't let the city shutter the plant without an alternative source of energy in the city's limits. Maxwell is apparently hoping to have the best of both worlds -- a shuttered plant and a new, city-owned clean energy-producing facility -- with this latest legislation. Posted By: Marisa Lagos <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/author?blogid=55&auth=140> (Email <mailto:mlagos@sfchronicle.com>) | Dec 16 at 05:28 PM Listed Under: Being green <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/category?blogid=55&cat=1945> | Permalink <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=3…> | Comments (2) <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=3…> : Post Comment <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=3…> -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Marin Clean Energy: URGENT: Must Vote Today to Block End Run By PG&E
by Eric Brooks 14 Dec '08

14 Dec '08

Hi all, The deadline for this action is today. The Marin Independent Journal is polling to see if there is support to force a countywide vote on Community Choice. A countywide vote would enable PG&E to do just what it did with Prop H in San Francisco, spending millions to kill clean energy through a ballot attack. The Journal will publish the poll results just before a Monday Marin County Supervisors vote on Community Choice in order to pressure them to accept a countywide vote. Please take a second to go to http://www.marinij.com/index.html and vote *"NO" *to the "Daily Poll" question: /"Should there be a countywide vote on the clean energy proposal?"/ Then please pass this on to everyone you know who cares about clean energy. peace Eric ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Michael Dietrick MD* <zena12(a)earthlink.net <mailto:zena12@earthlink.net>> Date: Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:50 PM Subject: Marin Clean Energy: Fwd: URGENT: Must Vote Today to Block End Run To: Michael Dietrick MD <zena12(a)earthlink.net <mailto:zena12@earthlink.net>> Good afternoon friends of Renewable Energy, I'm forwarding this message from Sue Spofford of Sustainable San Rafael, asking for a moment of your time. Our local paper, the Independent Journal (IJ), is a frequent ally of PG&E, our current energy service provider. They've pulled a "two-fer" today, publishing a front page story promoting an absolutely unnecessary vote on our Marin Clean Energy Initiative, and running a non-scientific public opinion poll at the same time. As most of you are familiar with Marin Clean Energy, and allied with its clean energy mission, please consider taking a second, visiting the Website linked below, and vote "NO" on the question. For your information, the new Marin Energy Authority has already been formed, and customers will have four opportunities to opt out and return to PG&E service if they choose to. Thanks so much for your time. Michael Dietrick Begin forwarded message: > *From: *Sue Spofford <suespof(a)comcast.net <mailto:suespof@comcast.net>> > *Date: *December 13, 2008 1:31:33 PM PST > *To: *Sue Spofford <suespof(a)comcast.net <mailto:suespof@comcast.net>> > *Subject: **URGENT: Must Vote Today to Block End Run* > > Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Supporters: > > We need your help right now with a quick but important action: Go > to _www.marinij.com_ <http://www.marinij.com/> and vote a > resounding *"NO" *to the "Daily Poll" question, /"Should there be a > countywide vote on the clean energy proposal?"/ > > > > You'll see the results being tabulated in real time (72 yes vs. 43 no, > the last we looked). They'll be published in Sunday's paper, and > could provide a smokescreen for disrupting the MCE vote by the San > Rafael City Council on Monday. > > > > With that critical vote pending, it looks to us like the IJ and PG&E > are attempting an end-run with the lead article in this morning's IJ > rehashing the notion of a countywide vote on MCE and inviting readers > to respond to the poll. > > > > A few of the reasons why a countywide vote is such a bad idea: > > * It would allow PG&E, the IJ and other unprogressive voices (and > their money) to dominate the discussion with sound-bite scare > tactics, drowning out the careful deliberative process conducted > by our elected officials with full public involvement for over a > year. > > * It would cost taxpayers at least $1,000,000 to conduct the > vote—and MCE supporters untold amounts to counteract the > accompanying campaign of misinformation—at the worst possible > time for such wasteful spending. > > * MCE already provides for individuals to "vote" on their own > participation in the program by staying with PG&E if they choose to. > > /We need to stop muddying the waters—and get on with clearing the air!/ > > Please go on line RIGHT NOW and vote "NO". > > Kiki and Sue > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Local Clean Energy East Bay Announce" group. To post to this group, send email to local-clean-energy-east-bay-announce(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to local-clean-energy-east-bay-announce+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/local-clean-energy-east-bay-announce?h... -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

1 0

[Sustain] FW: Greens Oppose Push for Nuclear
by Martin Zehr 03 Dec '08

03 Dec '08

The 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. > http://www.opednews.com/articles/GREENS-OPPOSE-PUSH-FOR-NUC-by-Matoska-0811… > > > >

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Urgent: Amazon In Immediate Danger
by Eric Brooks 03 Dec '08

03 Dec '08

Greenpeace <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=UDaTmrA55ViN2lXzhQnr…> December 02, 2008 In the Amazon, political shifts threaten to completely unravel legal protections for the Amazon rainforest. I've been with Greenpeace for more than 17 years, and I've never encountered such a dire situation. Your help is critical. * Amazon Rainforest* Click here to help the Amazon <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Dh1sSCJ92v70%2BG6rTM…>The Brazilian government is threatening to weaken the core legal protections for the Amazon, endangering one of the planet's most important ecosystems that helps balance our climate. In just the last year, we've lost nearly 3 million acres of rainforest in Brazil alone. Many of the protections we've won for the Amazon rely on Brazil's Forest Code. Right now, agribusiness is attempting to influence the Brazilian Congress to weaken the Forest Code. If that happens, we can expect a dramatic increase in deforestation rates, a significant loss of biodiversity, and a massive impact on global warming as carbon stored in the forest is released into the atmosphere. Take Action NOW >> The need is dire, and a vote may come as early as tomorrow! <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8X83%2FOuzQhdk%2FmJg…> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=eAppzVlSRBFo2%2BG5d2…> Lisa Finaldi Campaigns Director <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=UBU9Cl%2BjoVYM1ZYIEN…> 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20001 (800) 326-0959 <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ayvdn3zuZR33HlwcWbvv…>

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Meet Obama's National Security Adviser Gen. Jones
by Eric Brooks 03 Dec '08

03 Dec '08

*Obama's National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones (at a glance)* ** Retired General James L. Jones has been appointed by President-Elect Barack Obama as National Security Advisor. James is a four-star general who served as senior military assistant to Defense Secretary William Cohen during President Clinton?s second term. Clinton also appointed Jones as 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps, and he served as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from January 2003 ? December 2006. He has a reputation as ?one of the best-connected officers in the Pentagon,? and he is no stranger to the arenas of corporate capitalism or the think-tank world. He is Trustee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank chaired by Sam Nunn. He is also chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States. Further, Jones is President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce affiliated, Institute for 21st Century Energy. Check out their open letter to the 44th President, which calls for immediate expansion of domestic oil and natural gas exploration and production, commitment to expand nuclear energy use, and commitment to use clean coal: http://energyxxi.org/reports/Open_Letter.pdf Jones sits on the Board of Directors of both Chevron Corporation (also with Sam Nunn) and The Boeing Company, which manufactures military aircrafts, defense systems, missiles, satellites, launch vehicles and advanced information and communication systems. Jones is also on the Board of Directors of Invacare Corporation, a leading US manufacturer and distributor of medical equipment for use in homes. Additionally, he is on the Board of Directors of Cross Match Technologies, Inc., a provider of ?identity management solutions? including, ?fingerprint and palm scanners, facial recognition solutions, [and] iris capture devices.? In an interview with Sea Power Magazine in November 2002, Jones praised the role of technology and transformation in the advancement of military supremacy: ?We will truly be able to accomplish missions like Afghanistan without breaking a sweat,? he said. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/nov_02_11.php Jones is an advocate of a ?Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative,? an ?interagency plan to combat terrorism in trans-Saharan Africa using a range of political, economic and security tools.? The bulk of this strategy is aimed at funding, training, and supplying arms to a professional African security force, which will take directions from the United States and NATO. "Africa's vast potential makes African stability a near-term global strategic imperative," Jones said. "Development of effective security structures in Africa will establish the foundation for future success." http://osd.dtic.mil/news/Mar2006/20060308_4428.html By Adrian adrian(a)trivalleycares.org <mailto:adrian@trivalleycares.org> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 443-9502 http://www.space4peace.org globalnet(a)mindspring.com <mailto:globalnet@mindspring.com> http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog) -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Alert: Petition Obama for MEANINGFUL GMO labeling
by Eric Brooks 03 Dec '08

03 Dec '08

* * * Action Alert - Petition to Obama for MEANINGFUL GMO labeling* President Obama promised that genetically modified foods will require labels. Please sign the petition <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gm…> demanding comprehensive and meaningful GMO labeling; and thank him for giving us what we want, /and deserve/. *************************************************** President Obama is finally going to get genetically modified (GM) foods labeled—something 270 million Americans have wanted for a long time. The Bush, Clinton, and Bush I administrations denied it to us, ignoring 9 out of 10 citizens in order to support the economic interests of the 5 Ag biotech companies that make GMOs. Former FDA man Henry Miller admitted, “In this area, the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.” Why don’t the biotech companies want us to know that their products are in our food? Because we wouldn’t eat them. According to a /CBS/New York Times/ poll, most of us (53%) would avoid brands with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). *Close labeling loopholes* Outside the US and Canada, nearly all industrialized countries require GMOs to be labeled. But clear, comprehensive, and consumer-friendly criteria remain elusive. Japan’s laws allow food with a whopping 5% GMO contamination to go unlabeled. In Australia and New Zealand, loopholes exempt about 90% of their GM foods from labeling. Their law says that GM ingredients must be detectable in the final processed food in order to require labels. Thus, oil made from 100% GM soybeans, corn, cottonseed or canola (the four major GM crops) is unlabeled. These loose labeling regimes have consistently angered citizens and there is momentum for tightening standards. In the EU, for example, they used to exempt undetectable GMOs but now insist on labels if any ingredient is /DERIVED BY/ GMOs. Thus, they require traceability of ingredients to their GMO or Non-GMO origins. The EU has another loophole that upsets citizens there (which we must avoid here in the US). Milk, meat, and eggs from animals /fed/ GMOs don’t have to be labeled. Many groups are working hard to change this EU law. In the meantime several European food companies publicly committed not to use GMO animal feed. In the US, corporations have traditionally had the upper hand when it comes to negotiating details of regulations. We don’t want that to happen with labeling. President Obama is going to give us labeling—he promised us that. But will it be the citizens’ labeling plan or Monsanto’s? Sign the petition <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showPage/index.cfm?objectID=gm…> today demanding comprehensive and meaningful GMO labeling, and thank President Obama for giving us what we want, /and deserve/. But don’t wait for labeling to avoid GMOs. Download our Non-GMO Shopping Guide <http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showDocumentFile?objectID=144>, which gives tips and brands to help you choose healthier non-GMO food. Healthy Eating! Jeffrey M.Smith Executive Director www.responsibletechnology.org <http://www.responsibletechnology.org/> Author, /Genetic Roulette/ and /Seeds of Deception/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] FW: [sfbayoil] City of San Francisco Infrastructure
by Martin Zehr 02 Dec '08

02 Dec '08

I am forwarding this to the EcoAction list and other lists from a San Francisco Peak Oil Yahoo list. It presents an apocalyptic scenario but is rooted in some science. Some issues raised in this context is what are the potential sources for infrastructure development. We should ratchet up activity supporting S. 2842, the Aging Water Infrastructure and Maintenance Act sponsored by Harry Reid (Dem, NV). http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2842 Mato Ska GPCA San Francisco To: sfbayoil(a)yahoogroups.com From: alice_friedemann(a)yahoo.com Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:56:56 +0000 Subject: [sfbayoil] City of San Francisco Infrastructure Everyone, This is what I spent a few hours writing for the San Francisco Peak Oil Task Force before they had a meeting on the infrastructure chapter -- it's just what I scrabbled together off the top of my head the day of the meeting, and does not reflect the immense amount of research I've done on infrastructure over the years. The infrastructure posts hit a raw nerve in me. We can cope with a lot of hardship, but social disorder is far more likely if the infrastructure fails. People will die -- clean water and food account for 90% of our lifespan over age 50, not medicine. Alice City of San Francisco Infrastructure By Alice Friedemann, July 15, 2008 Since there are no alternative energy sources, except for fusion, which could possibly replace fossil fuels (Hoffert, Hayden), and there aren't any alternative energy sources that can replace fossil fuels in the window of time left, the city of San Francisco needs to prioritize how their budget is spent on coping with the energy crisis. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ACSE) gave grades of D- to drinking water, D- to wastewater, and C+ to solid waste, so clearly, even without an energy crisis, these essential services need more attention and funding. And since these services are ninety percent of the reason we live past age fifty (Garrett), clearly they should receive a large portion of whatever funding is available. The lifetime of some components of the clean water infrastructure last for only 15 years, and at most 100 years. Pumping stations, force and trunk mains wear out. In this century, all of the 600,000 miles of pipes delivering clean water to homes will need to be replaced. Every component of the water system is aging. The energy required to replace or maintain thousands of treatment plants, pumping stations, reservoirs and dams over the next century is staggering (EPA). City departments that provide these essential, life supporting services should be replacing the oldest water lines, sewer pipes, and other aging infrastructure as soon as possible. In addition, they should be buying and stockpiling duplicate and even triplicate spare parts, pipes, and other components in anticipation of their unavailability in the future due to: " Dollar weakness from the inflation of war and increasingly higher energy prices, and continuing bailouts of financial institutions as the unwinding of debt, the subprime crisis, derivatives, and other highly leveraged financial instruments continues. " If there's a global depression, the companies that make fundamental components of water treatment systems may go out of business. " Supply chains may break down in countries having power crises, natural disasters, social disorder, etc Energy Efficiency at Water Treatment Facilities The state of California has a website dedicated to using less energy to deliver water and treat wastewater with many useful recommendations: http://www.energy.ca.gov/process/water/wastewater_treatment.html Water Conservation Conservation of water by citizens and businesses will be important not only to stress water systems less, but due the possibility of a long-term drought. City staff can educate everyone on how to cut back by teaching people how to read their water meter, check for leaks, calculate how much water they're using, water conservation strategies, irrigation information, etc. Underground Facilities Although San Francisco has built hundreds of cisterns underground, in a future of climate change and intermittent power, earthquakes, and fires, the need for water will grow in importance. Emergency water supplies for fruit and nut trees and community gardens during a drought would be especially useful. Underground storage should be built to house people during an earthquake, since underground spaces are less vulnerable to earthquakes, and stay roughly the same temperature, so they don't need to be heated or cooled. The Moscone center will certainly be useful should such a situation arise, but can't house the entire population of the city as well as being the center of operations for City Hall. These underground facilities can also be used to store durable food, so that if grocery stores are unable to keep their shelves stocked, at least there will be alternative food available. This was historically always the role cities played. In 2004, I asked the state office of emergency services if the state or cities had food, fuel, blankets, and so on to provide to citizens in natural disasters, and Kathleen Bailey, Program Manager of the OES Coastal Region replied: "It would be prohibitively expensive and impractical for cities to provide sufficient supplies for an entire populace. Absent a commitment by the voters to pay for the purchase and warehousing of supplies and the creation of a bureaucracy to oversee the unending project, the cities do not have the funds or authority to assume such a role." But to prevent social disorder, it would be wise for the city of San Francisco to anticipate the need to stockpile food for its residents. Or they can try to get grocery stores to take on this role, as happened recently in Britain (Oakeshott). Fire Department Since the city of San Francisco already depends on tourism for a great deal of its revenue, and will need tourism even more in the future, preventing the city from burning down is paramount. Even more underground cisterns for firefighting and emergency supplies will help to fight fires when the power is out from energy shortages and natural disasters. People will be tempted to try to cook food over fires in their fireplaces during energy outages, so it's essential that this be illegal. If community centers are set up, perhaps at existing local schools which already have cooking facilities, the temptation to do this will be less, and far less energy per person will be used if food is cooked communally. Police Department Community centers will also get people out of their cold, dark apartments into warm, lit, public places. The city of San Francisco should encourage a "café society" through tax and other city policies to get people out of their homes to maximize energy use. Electricity can then be channeled to street lighting, internet cafes, movie theaters, community centers, restaurants, and so on rather than homes to make use of limited energy better. The more people out on the streets, the less crime there will be. This will deter gangs from taking over dark and empty streets. Recycling San Francisco needs to get as close to "zero waste" as possible. Japan requires manufacturers to take back their air conditioners, televisions, washing machines, and refrigerators. San Francisco might consider copying some of the Japanese cities which have over 40 kinds of recycling categories. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/international/asia/12garbage.html?_r=1&or… Since food and the packaging it comes in comprise a hefty chunk of what enters the landfill, grocery stores should be encouraged to sell food from bulk supplies in re-usable containers, and to tax packaged items. This will also help to mitigate food supply crises and vastly improve the health of San Francisco residents. Incineration of solid waste is wasteful and hard to do safely because of the toxic fumes released from plastics and other materials. Resources that could have been used are burned unnecessarily, and very little electricity can be generated. Often the products burned would be worth far more recycled than as a fuel (Odum 218). Once reusable items, concentrated materials, and toxic waste is removed, what's left over can be shredded and dispersed in forests. This was done in Florida and it increased the growth of trees because it restores the soil. The content of "green" waste should be composted locally rather than hauled far away and chipped or dumped as a layer in landfills. (Odum 218) Reward people for their efforts. Samsam Bakhtiari, a peak oil expert who used to work at the National Iranian Oil Company and Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, urges the use of market incentives to reward people for reducing, reusing, or recycling. Transportation fuel for essential vehicles Biodiesel is not sustainable, takes more energy to make than is received from it, ecologically destructive, has a short shelf life, and impure or decayed biodiesel can shorten engine life - not a good idea at a time when new engines and replacement parts are likely to be difficult to come by (Friedemann). California still produces 40% of its own oil, and Alaskan and other oil are likely to be available for a while. When rationing begins, essential city departments will receive what they need before the remaining oil is sold to the public. Streets & sidewalks Enforce truck weight codes vigorously because overweight trucks are one of the main causes of the need to repair roads. Remove or perforate as many streets and sidewalks as possible to allow water infiltration to assist the growth of fruit trees, community gardens, and runoff (Odum, p215). Don't allow buildings on existing green spaces and parking lots Some groups believe that building density into cities reduces commuting and urban sprawl. But infilling is not appropriate at a time when decentralization is required, and will diminish San Francisco residents access to open, green space - very much needed not only for local gardens to reduce the energy to transport food, but for much needed stress reduction and enjoyment as the ability to travel to natural areas lessens (odum 216). Floating Piers Because of the risk of rising sea levels, build a few, very long piers that rise and fall with the tide for future sailing vessels, sloops, and barges. Containerization will continue for a while, since container ships use bunker fuel (the worst, dirtiest, gunkiest stuff) and despite their large size, are efficient given the overall amount of cargo moved, but San Francisco should anticipate the end of containerization and leap-frog the Port of Oakland. Long Term Although Hetch Hetchy will continue to provide electricity for years to come, all dams are eventually rendered useless by sediment. If there is a long-term drought cycle beginning, the normal climate in California (the last century was one of the wettest in millennia), then electricity outages are likely to occur when natural gas plants can't make up for the lack of water at Hetch Hetchy. Any steps that can be taken now, while energy is still abundant and cheap, should be taken to make the water treatment and sewage systems as functional as possible without any power at all, such as more use of gravity, (artificial) wetlands, fish ponds, forests, non-food farms, fertilizer, and other methods from before fossil fuels (odum 218, 227, 228). References ACSE American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card for America's Infrastructure. 2005. http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water . 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. (4606M) EPA-816-R-02-020 www.epa.gov/safewater Friedemann, A. 2007. "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic and other Biofuels are Not Sustainable and a Threat to America's National Security". http://www.energyskeptic.com/Peak_Soil.htm Garrett, L. 2001. Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. Hyperion Hayden, H. 2005. The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World.. Vales Lake Publishing. Hoffert, M.,et al. November 1, 2002. Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet. Science, 298: 981-987 Oakeshott, J. July 6, 2008 Government asks stores to stockpile food to overcome hauliers strike. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4276490.ece Odum, H.T. 2001. "A Prosperous Way Down. Principles and Policies. University Press of Colorado.

1 0