March 2008 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] New Science: Zero Emissions Necessary To Avert Climate Disasters
by Eric Brooks 17 Mar '08

17 Mar '08

Hi all, Here is an article that gets to the heart of the climate crisis. These new findings actually make our jobs much easier, because they allow us to start saying to people and policy makers that global civilisation must become a zero carbon emitter as soon as possible. No more need to haggle about CO2 parts per million, or percentages of reduction by this date or that one. We can just start saying to people that we need to become a zero carbon emitting civilisation as immediately as we can. Here is the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR200803090… *Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say* By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 10, 2008; A01 The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades. Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide. Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Canada?tid=informline> and Germany <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Germany?tid=informline>, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further. "The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about." Although many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising. For now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning to grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton <http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/> (N.Y. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+York?tid=informline>) and Barack Obama <http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/> (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain <http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/> (Ariz. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Arizona?tid=informline>), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century. Sen. Barbara Boxer <http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000711/> (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings "make it clear we must act now to address global warming." "It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling," she said. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves." James L. Connaughton <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/James+L.+Connaughton?tid=in…>, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, offered a more guarded reaction, saying the idea that "ultimately you need to get to net-zero emissions" is "something we've heard before." When it comes to tackling such a daunting environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time." Until now, scientists and policymakers have generally described the problem in terms of halting the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. The United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the question that way two decades ago, and many experts talk of limiting CO2concentrations to 450 parts per million (ppm). But Caldeira and Oregon State University <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Oregon+State+University?tid…> professor Andreas Schmittner now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius (nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences. Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit. "This is tremendous," Schmittner said. "I was struck by the fact that the warming continues much longer even after emissions have declined. . . . Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years." While natural cycles remove roughly half of human-emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere within a hundred years, a significant portion persists for thousands of years. Some of this carbon triggers deep-sea warming, which keeps raising the global average temperature even after emissions halt. Researchers have predicted for a long time that warming will persist even after the world's carbon emissions start to fall and that countries will have to dramatically curb their carbon output in order to avert severe climate change. Last year's report of the U.N. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations?tid=informli…> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Intergovernmental+Panel+on+…> said industrialized nations would have to cut emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 to limit CO2concentrations to the 450 ppm goal, and the world as a whole would have to reduce emissions by 50 to 80 percent. European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Washington last week for meetings with administration officials, said he and his colleagues are operating on the assumption that developed nations must cut emissions 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, with an overall global reduction of 50 percent. "If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed," he said. The two new studies outline the challenge in greater detail, and on a longer time scale, than many earlier studies. Schmittner's study, for example, projects how the Earth will warm for the next 2,000 years. But some climate researchers who back major greenhouse gas reductions said it is unrealistic to expect policymakers to think in terms of such vast time scales. "People aren't reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient," said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's like you're starting off on a road trip from New York to California <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/California?tid=informline>, and before you even start, you're arguing about where you're going to park at the end." Brian O'Neill of the National Center for Atmospheric Research emphasized that some uncertainties surround the strength of the natural carbon cycle and the dynamics of ocean warming, which in turn would affect the accuracy of Caldeira's modeling. "Neither of these are known precisely," he said. Although computer models used by scientists to project changes in the climate have become increasingly powerful, scientists acknowledge that no model is a perfect reflection of the complex dynamics involved and how they will evolve with time. Still, O'Neill said the modeling "helps clarify thinking about long-term policy goals. If we want to reduce warming to a certain level, there's a fixed amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. After that, we can't emit any more, at all." Caldeira and his colleague, H. Damon Matthews, a geography professor at Concordia University in Montreal, emphasized this point in their paper, concluding that "each unit of CO2emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change on centennial timescales." Steve Gardiner, a philosophy professor at the University of Washington <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/University+of+Washington?ti…> who studies climate change, said the studies highlight that the argument over global warming "is a classic inter-generational debate, where the short-term benefits of emitting carbon accrue mainly to us and where the dangers of them are largely put off until future generations." When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, "in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question." The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, "appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible." (c) 2008 The Washington Post Company

1 0

[Sustain] Mayor Announces 'Largest Municipal Solar Program In U.S.'
by Eric Brooks 15 Mar '08

15 Mar '08

Hi all, Last Tuesday, March 11, (though some of us the week before succeeded in getting a 7-4 vote to send the Mayor/SFPUC's solar grant program back to committee), Mayor Newsom and The SFPUC announced that they were proceeding with a 1 year pilot of the program anyway. They were joined in the announcement by former PG&E PR director Guillermo Rodriguez, who has just been appointed as head of the Mayor's City Build and 'Green Collar Jobs' programs, and who spoke about his role which will be supposedly bringing jobs to the Bayview Hunters Point through the solar program. The Mayor also said in the announcement that he thinks he has swayed at least two of the Supervisors who temporarily rejected the long term ten year version the program (which was what was sent back to committee) to reconsider on future votes, so the Mayor's maneuvers are still looming, and it is crucial that we get the Supes to only give a pass to the program with the firm condition that it must first be vetted through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in regard to its impact and interaction with the Community Choice Energy project (CCA). I would strongly recommend watching this particular Mayor's press announcement, because in it he and the other speakers very clearly reveal their overall strategy on this issue, and show that they are going to continue to ramp up their playing of the race card on this issue. You can see the video by going to: http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=18 and clicking on Launch of Largest Municipal Solar Program in United States <javascript:void(0);> across from the 3/11/08 press conference date. CCA, which really -will- be the Largest Municipal Solar Program in the World within the next year, was of course never once mentioned once during the press conference... peace Eric -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] California Water Plan Meetings
by Martin Zehr 15 Mar '08

15 Mar '08

The Water Plan's next Advisory Committee meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel in Sacramento on March 21-22. Registration fee is $15. Email your RSVP to vsajac(a)water.ca.gov to Ginny Sajac or call 916-653-7101. Go to http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/ac/03.20-21.08/AC-… for the agenda. "A key objective of the California Water Plan is to present a diverse set of resource management strategies to meet the water related resource management needs of each region. Management strategies can be integrated in various ways to fit the water management objectives and values of different regions and to achieve multiple resource benefits. "The Department of Water Resources seeks your input on the Initial Drafts of the California Water Plan Update 2009's Resource Management Strategy narratives. Please contact us to submit comments. All written comments will be posted online at our Public Comments Web Page. " http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/ March 24, 2008, 10:00am - 3:00pm, San Francisco Bay Regional Workshop in Oakland Location: Elihu Harris State Office Building (Room 2), 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 Announcement (.pdf, 22 kb)

1 0

[Sustain] Forests - The West’s most ignored reservoirs
by Martin Zehr 15 Mar '08

15 Mar '08

Forests - The West’s most ignored reservoirs Felice Pace Writer of Diatribes In California and throughout the West everyone seems to be talking about global warming. Dominating the conversation are dire predictions about diminished water supplies that will result from shrinking snow pack in the West’s mountains. Conspicuously absent from the debate has been discussion of the impact of forest management on dry season water supply - “baseflow” in the lexicon of hydrologists. The Western US may be the only place in the world where the connection between trees – or more precisely upland forests – and water supply is not recognized. Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai’, whose organizations have planted millions of trees in Africa, claimed in an interview with Sierra Magazine that everyone knows that where there are trees there is also water. She was wrong. With a few notable exceptions, the Western US is in denial about the connection. This denial is reflected in research programs and management plans being crafted to address global warming. The Forest Service, for example, has a massive global warming research program underway with a focus in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains. One would think that the relationship between forest management and water supply would figure prominently in that research. But one would be wrong. The connection is not a focus for research and is barely even mentioned on the research programs web site. You can check it out for yourself at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pep/climatechange/. Forest Service climate change research has instead focused on how climate change will change forests and habitats. Most prominently, the Forest Service projects larger and more intense fires and prescribes intensive forest management to reduce fire risk. Is it just coincidence that this emphasis coincides with the Forest Service long standing institution bias in favor of cutting trees? Intensified forest management would result in increased compaction of forest soils and forest soils, it turns out, are the West’s #1 reservoir. On average 1/3 of healthy forest soil is empty spaces. These spaces fill with water during the wet season and release that stored water to groundwater, springs and streams throughout the dry season. Logging involves soil disturbance which compacts forest soils diminishing their ability to store water; the more intense the logging, the less storage capacity and the greater the negative impact on base streamflow and groundwater. The State of California is in the midst of a massive effort to update its water plan to deal with global warming impacts. But here too forest management is not a topic of discussion. Instead there is a push to create more surface storage. Can California’s myopia have something to do with the fact that most of California’s upland forests are owned by Sierra Pacific Industries and other large timber corporations? Executives from these corporations populate all relevant California boards and commissions and they contribute generously to California politicians. Changing logging rules to protect and restore the capacity of forest soil to store and release water would be prudent in the face of climate change. But California politics make such a move unlikely. Amid this wasteland of denial there are a few voices crying in the wilderness about the connection between forest management and water supply. One of those voices is that of Andy Lipkis, founder and CEO of Tree People based in Los Angeles. While the Forest Service proposes cutting more trees in response to global warming, Tree People promotes tree planting to capture more wet season water for use during the dry season. You can check out Tree People’s programs at http://www.treepeople.org/. Another voice in the wilderness is that of Forest Service researcher Gordon Grant. Grant – one the West’s most respected hydrologists – predicts that “in terms of what comes off federal lands, the value of the water, in my view, will eclipse the value of wood products.” Grant’s assertion might equally be applied to the West’s private forests. You can read more about Gordon Grant’s research and predictions at http://www.capitalpress.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=39012&SectionID=161…. Will westerners wake up to the connection between forests and their water supply? Will the capacity of forest soils to protect stream baseflow become a forest management imperative? And will the West’s giant timber corporations become the heroes of the West’s response to climate change impacts on water supply? History does not suggest optimistic answers to these questions; more likely the traditional elites in industry, government and agriculture will continue to chase the chimera of new surface storage and ignore our most important reservoir – upland forest soils. As a result we may be looking at a future with more half full reservoirs, more over-pumped aquifers and less dry season streamflow to sustain westerners and the West’s stream ecosystems. http://blog.hcn.org/goat/2008/03/14/forests-the-wests-most-ignored-reservoi…

1 0

[Sustain] [CCEA_Advocacy] PG&E Escalating Its Greenwashing Machine
by Eric Brooks 15 Mar '08

15 Mar '08

http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/03/pges_green_war_chest.html SF Bay Guardian: PG&E's Green War Chest? Greetings, Californians for a Clean Energy Future! <http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1303053&vie…> Welcome to the fold <http://frontgroups.org/> of innocuous sounding, pseudo-environmental political front groups. This one is brought to us by our buddies over at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. The group, which doesn't seem to have a Web site or any other physical manifestation outside of filings with the California Secretary of State, already has $340,000 ready and waiting for the upcoming election cycle. According to a Secretary of State spokesperson, the group was born on Dec. 21, 2007. The only contact is the law firm Nielsen Merksamer, which has a history of teaming up with PG&E to break the law for political gain. <http://www.sfbg.com/39/04/news_sutton.html> So far, they haven't spent a cent -- all of which were dumped into the committee by PG&E in three lump sums. <http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1303053&vie…> Wonder what they're going to spend all that money on? Since it's calling itself a "coalition of environmentalists, taxpayers, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company," it could go for or against nearly anything -- including boosting Prop 98 <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/98_06_2008.aspx> on this June's ballot. If passed, the measure would kill rent control and make it illegal for governments to use eminent domain to seize utility infrastructure and use it to provide the services themselves, an idea San Francisco has considered in the past and Stockton is currently pursuing. <http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=A_SPECIAL0209> Posted by Amanda Witherell on March 14, 2008 03:11 PM -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: MUNI Pulls Hybrids From Bayview
by Eric Brooks 09 Mar '08

09 Mar '08

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2008/03/08/vandalism-prompts-offici… Vandalism prompts officials to pull hybrid buses from Bayview-Hunters Point lines <http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2008/03/08/vandalism-prompts-offici…> * By Ashley Wright and Jesse Dungan* March 8, 2008 Hybrid buses running through San Francisco's Bayview-Hunters Point District were removed Thursday to preserve driver and passenger safety, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency officials said Friday. Vandals have been accessing the bus's power switch through a panel door on the sides of the hybrid buses running on the 54-Felton, MUNI spokesman Judson True said. "The safety issue came to our attention and we addressed it in the short term," True said of pulling the buses. A long-term solution to the problem may include adding locks to the panel doors, he said. The cost of installing the locks would not be significant, True said. "Our first priority is making sure that our drivers, customers and vehicles are safe," he added. Bus service has not been interrupted and is running regularly. However, officials said Wednesday that the agency is working on an increased police presence, which will include undercover officers on buses, on the on the 44 O'Shaughnessy and 54-Felton lines running through the Bayview-Hunters Point District due to a jump in violence on the lines. The decision was made by Municipal Transportation Authority Executive Director Nathaniel Ford in conjunction with the Police Department, according to True. There have been 10 reported incidents of violence this year, which have varied from operators being assaulted to vehicles being damaged by thrown rocks, True said. "We have seen an increase in these sorts of attacks over the last two months and we wanted to let all of our stakeholders know we are doing everything we can to keep customers and operators safe," True said. Service was temporarily suspended on the 44-O'Shaughnessy and 54-Felton lines earlier in the year due to reported incidents, according to True. He said that service is suspended on a case-by-case basis. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Newsom Taps Past PG&E PR Director To Run CityBuild & 'Green Collar Jobs'
by Eric Brooks 08 Mar '08

08 Mar '08

Hey all, See the press release below. What the release doesn't say is that Guillermo Rodriguez used to be the head Public Relations flack for PG&E. What you -will- see in the release is that Guillermo is also on the very same solar taskforce that developed the Mayor's bogus solar incentives programs. see: http://www.puente.net/adboard.html#rodr%E2%80%99guez http://www.indymedia.org/pt/2005/03/113906.shtml Here's the release: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, March 7, 2008 Contact: Mayor's Office of Communications 415-554-6131 ***PRESS RELEASE*** MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM ANNOUNCES NEW DIRECTOR OF CITYBUILD PROGRAM SAN FRANCISCO, CA - In an effort to expand employment opportunities for San Franciscans, today Mayor Gavin Newsom announced the hiring of Guillermo Rodriguez as the new director of CityBuild. Mayor Newsom's Inaugural Address pledged to expand job opportunities, doubling current efforts to make sure more San Franciscans are ready for the jobs of the future by expanding the City Build program so that it will teach the "green collar" job skills demanded by the emerging green tech revolution. "Guillermo is uniquely suited for this job, given his corporate, non-profit and environmental advocacy background," said Mayor Newsom. "We are pleased to have him on board to grow the CityBuild program and to coordinate and launch San Francisco's green collar job training and placement initiative." Rodriguez has an extensive background in both business and non-profit management. He was the executive director of the A. Philip Randolph Institute where he has successfully championed local hiring programs and serves as a member of San Francisco's Solar Task Force which has recommended an innovate incentive program to spur residential and business solar installation using San Franciscans trained as solar installers. Rodriguez is active in many civic and community based organizations. He serves as a Trustee of the California State Parks Foundation and as a member of the Board of Meals on Wheels San Francisco and Latino Issues Forum. "Since its inception, CityBuild has trained, graduated and placed 650 San Franciscans into good paying union jobs," said Workforce Director Rhonda Simmons. "With Guillermo's skills, community networks and with the Mayor's leadership we can double and triple those numbers and make the Mayor's "green collar" job initiative a reality and model for other cities." ### David Carrington Miree Deputy Communications Director Mayor's Office of Communications City Hall, RM 291 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl. San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-6537-DIRECT (415) 554-6131 (415) 554-4058-Fax

1 0