June 2008 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] Best Condemnation Of Biofuel Yet From Monbiot
by Eric Brooks 07 Jun '08

07 Jun '08

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/ The Last Straw <http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/> Posted February 12, 2008 A new generation of biofuels turns out to be another environmental disaster By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 12th February 2008 Now they might start sitting up. They wouldn't listen to the environmentalists or even the geologists. Can governments ignore the capitalists? A report published last week by Citibank, and so far unremarked by the media, proposes "genuine difficulties" in increasing the production of crude oil, "particularly after 2012."(1) Though 175 big drilling projects will start in the next four years, "the fear remains that most of this supply will be offset by high levels of decline". The oil industry has scoffed at the notion that oil supplies might peak, but "recent evidence of failed production growth would tend to shift the burden of proof onto the producers", as they have been unable to respond to the massive rise in prices. "Total global liquid hydrocarbon production has essentially flatlined since mid 2005 at just north of 85 million barrels per day." The issue is complicated, as ever, by the refusal of the OPEC cartel to raise production. What has changed, Citi says, is that the non-OPEC countries can no longer answer the price signal. Does this mean that oil production in these nations has already peaked? If so, what do our governments intend to do? Nine months ago, I asked the British government to send me its assessments of global oil supply. The results astonished me: there weren't any(2). Instead it relied exclusively on one external source: a book published by the International Energy Agency. The omission became stranger still when I read this book and discovered that it was a crude polemic, dismissing those who questioned future oil supplies as "doomsayers" without providing robust evidence to support its conclusions(3). Though the members of OPEC have a powerful interest in exaggerating their reserves in order to boost their quotas, the IEA relied on their own assessments of future supply. Last week I tried again, and I received the same response: "the Government agrees with IEA analysis that global oil (and gas) reserves are sufficient to sustain economic growth for the foreseeable future."(4) Perhaps it hasn't noticed that the IEA is now backtracking. The Financial Times says the agency "has admitted that it has been paying insufficient attention to supply bottlenecks as evidence mounts that oil is being discovered more slowly than once expected ... natural decline rates for discovered fields are a closely guarded secret in the oil industry, and the IEA is concerned that the data it currently holds is not accurate."(5) What if the data turns out to be wrong? What if OPEC's stated reserves are a pack of lies? What contingency plans has the government made? Answer comes there none. The European Commission, by contrast, does have a plan, and it's a disaster. It recognises that "the oil dependence of the transport sector ... is one of the most serious problems of insecurity in energy supply that the EU faces"(6). Partly in order to diversify fuel supplies, partly to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it has ordered the member states to ensure that by 2020 10% of the petroleum our cars burn must be replaced with biofuels. This won't solve peak oil, but it might at least put it into perspective by causing an even bigger problem. To be fair to the Commission, it has now acknowledged that biofuels are not a green panacea. Its draft directive rules that they shouldn't be produced by destroying primary forests, ancient grasslands or wetlands, as this could cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Nor should any biodiverse ecosystem be damaged in order to grow them(7). It sounds good, but there are three problems. If biofuels can't be produced in virgin habitats, they must be confined to existing agricultural land, which means that every time we fill up the car we snatch food from people's mouths. This, in turn, raises the price of food, which encourages farmers to destroy pristine habitats - primary forests, ancient grasslands, wetlands and the rest - in order to grow it. We can congratulate ourselves on remaining morally pure, but the impacts are the same. There is no way out of this: on a finite planet with tight food supplies you either compete with the hungry or clear new land. The third problem is that the Commission's methodology has just been blown apart by two new papers. Published in Science magazine, they calculate the total carbon costs of biofuel production(8,9). When land clearance (caused either directly or by the displacement of food crops) is taken into account, all the major biofuels cause a massive increase in emissions. Even the most productive source - sugarcane grown in the scrubby savannahs of central Brazil - creates a carbon debt which takes 17 years to repay. As the major carbon reductions must be made now, the net effect of this crop is to exacerbate climate change. The worst source - palm oil displacing tropical rainforest growing in peat - invokes a carbon debt of some 840 years. Even when you produce ethanol from maize grown on "rested" arable land (which in the EU is called set-aside and in the US is called conservation reserve), it takes 48 years to repay the carbon debt. The facts have changed. Will the policy follow? Many people believe there's a way of avoiding these problems: by making biofuels not from the crops themselves but from crop wastes. If transport fuel can be manufactured from straw or grass or wood chips, there are no implications for land use, and no danger of spreading hunger. Until recently I believed this myself(10). Unfortunately most agricultural "waste" is nothing of the kind. It is the organic material which maintains the soil's structure, nutrients and store of carbon. A paper commissioned by the US government proposes that, to help meet its biofuel targets, 75% of annual crop residues should be harvested(11). According to a letter published in Science last year, removing crop residues can increase the rate of soil erosion 100-fold(12). Our addiction to the car, in other words, could lead to peak soil as well as peak oil(13). Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes in land use into account(14). Growing special second generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn't solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food production and carbon emissions. Growing switchgrass, one of the new papers in Science shows, creates a carbon debt of 52 years(15). Some people propose making second generation fuels from grass harvested in natural meadows or from municipal waste, but it's hard enough to produce them from single feedstocks; far harder to manufacture them from a mixture. Apart from used chip fat, there is no such thing as a sustainable biofuel. All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have peaked some time ago. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Citi, 4th February 2008. Industry Focus: Oil Companies - International. 2. See http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/29/what-if-the-oil-runs-out/ 3. International Energy Agency, 2005. Resources to Reserves: Oil & Gas Technologies for the Energy Markets of the Future. Available electronically at: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/oil_gas.pdf 4. Email from the Energy Desk, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 8th February 2008. 5. Dino Mahtani, 26th December 2007. Oil watchdog reworks reserves forecasts. The Financial Times. 6. Commission of the European Communities, 23rd January 2008. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, p8. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_directive_en.pdf 7. Commission of the European Communities, 23rd January 2008. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, Article 15. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_directive_en.pdf 8. Joseph Fargione, Jason Hill, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, Peter Hawthorne, 7th February 2008. Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science. Doi 10.1126/science.1152747. 9. Timothy Searchinger, Ralph Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, Fengxia Dong, Amani Elobeid, Jacinto Fabiosa, Simla Tokgoz, Dermot Hayes, Tun-Hsiang Yu, 7th February 2008. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change . Science. Doi 10.1126/science.1151861. 10. I am grateful to Jim Thomas from the ETC Group for putting me right. 11. US Department of Energy and US department of Agriculture, April 2005. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: the Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf 12. David Pimentel and Rattan Lal, 17th August 2007. Letter: Biofuels and the Environment. Science. 13. This term has been used by Alice Friedemann, 10th April 2007. Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America. http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=… 14. PJ Crutzen, AR Mosier, KA Smith and W Winiwarter, 1 August 2007. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 7, pp11191--11205. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf 15. Joseph Fargione et al, ibid. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] New Report: Must -Reduce- CO2 To Avoid Catastrophe
by Eric Brooks 07 Jun '08

07 Jun '08

Hi all, New data that I had guessed would emerge, finally has. James Hansen of NASA (who was the first to broadly alert the world to the accelerating greenhouse effect) and many other scientists, have now released a report that gives a much more urgent warning on the global carbon/climate crisis than previous releases; especially by comparison to the very weak reports that emerged from from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Previous recent releases by scientists suggested that as a planetary civilization we needed to hold CO2 to 400 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere (the planet is currently at 387ppm) to avoid a planet wide climate catastrophe. The new report shows that, because of new understandings about rapid feedback effects in the planetary system, it is now clear that we must instead -reduce- levels of CO2 in the atmosphere from their current levels -down- to at least 350ppm, and possibly even lower than 300ppm. This new information gives us iron clad credibility in our renewable energy, mass transit, localization and efficiency campaigns to sharply state that catastrophic climate, and therefore planetary and human civilizational change is unavoidable unless we immediately switch to a zero carbon emissions economy and food system, AND use rapid soil building, biodynamic agriculture and forest watershed management, in order to draw carbon back -down- out of the atmosphere as rapidly as possible. (Among other realities, this clearly amplifies that biofuel crop production, which is inherently monocultural and forest/soil disturbing, is even more untenable than we have already begun to realize from the serious warning signs of the planetary food crisis.) The previous alarm that I and others sounded that we must cut our CO2 emissions 100% by 2030 is now outdated. The new alarm is that we must both reduce our emissions to zero as quickly as possible, and, completely reform our global agriculture systems to become biodynamically self sustaining (using zero fossil fuel inputs) -and- designed to rapidly pull carbon back down into the soil creating new -feet- of topsoil in decades. (Note that there are already permaculture agriculture techniques that are actively achieving this amount of soil building - we now must simply make these techniques our new global way of life.) To see a report about the new release go to: http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/740711 To see the scientific release itself go to: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf This all gives us the best argument we have had to date to insist that our communities take immediate action. Instead of talking in generalities of how global CO2 output must be reduced by various percentages, we can now simply focus on our own local infrastructures and food systems and start setting more immediate rapid targets for specific changes; such as 100% mass transit accessibility by 2018, 100% zero carbon electricity by 2023, a local biodynamic food growth and distribution system by 2028 etc. We can now shift from setting vague targets for climate composition, and instead start setting specific dated targets for specific critical municipal tasks. We have now moved from and age of climate activism based on amorphous scientific figures, to a new phase of climate rescue based on actual near term and large scale infrastructure tasks in our own communities and food systems. The new mantra can now be: Specific complete infrastructure changes must be made - as quickly as possible. peace Eric Brooks -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Zoo To Wildlife Center Transition Proposal Delivered To Supervisors!
by Eric Brooks 07 Jun '08

07 Jun '08

Hi all, The SF Green Party proposal for legislation to transition the Zoo into a Regional Wildlife Center (see attached) has now been cleaned up, put in its final form, and sent to both Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly. Chris Daly responded and said that he is also working with In Defense Of Animals (IDA) on proposed legislation. Ross said he looked at the proposal and liked it. Our task now is to make sure that both supervisors actually take up our proposal and actively move it forward. We need to take imminent action because the SF Zoological Society's contract is up at the end of this month and we need to get our proposal on the table as the way forward before the contract renewal is heard in committee. cheers Eric Brooks -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Zoo Director Resigns
by Eric Brooks 07 Jun '08

07 Jun '08

See article below. While this is welcome news, it means we have to be even more vigilant now. This could be a move on the part of the SF Zoological Society to let the resigning director take the blame for the Zoo's problems on his own shoulders as he leaves, giving them the chance to fly in under the radar and get approved for a new long term contract with the City; which would be a travesty. We must keep foremost in our mind and work that the SF Zoological Society is the real problem, and we must continue to demand that its management of, and fundraising for, the facility must end as rapidly as possible. peace Eric http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/06/BACT114U8M.DTL&… Beleaguered S.F. Zoo director quits Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:rgordon@sfchronicle.com> Friday, June 6, 2008 San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo meets with me... <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/06/06/BACT114U8M.D…> Tatiana, a Siberian tiger, escaped from her grotto last C... <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/06/06/BACT114U8M.D…> *(06-06) 17:47 PDT San Francisco -* -- Manuel Mollinedo, the executive director of the San Francisco Zoo, has resigned, officials announced late today. The announcement, issued nearly six months after a zoo tiger escaped on Christmas Day and killed a San Jose teenager, comes amid high zoo employee turnover and what some keepers described as abysmal morale. The San Francisco Zoological Society, the nonprofit that oversees zoo operations, issued a statement at 5:20 p.m. today.Tanya McVeigh Peterson, a lawyer who serves on the zoo society board, has been appointed interim director. In addition, Carl Friedman, head of the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control, will be temporarily assigned to the zoo to help with animal welfare and management issues, sources told The Chronicle. Mollinedo became director of the 100-acre facility in February 2004 after running the Los Angeles Zoo for eight years. The San Francisco Zoological Society provided no details on what led to Mollinedo's departure, other than that he plans to retire in the Bay Area and will stay active in his support of the zoo. "The board greatly appreciates his efforts and wishes him well in his retirement," the statement said. Word of an impending shake-up began to leak Thursday afternoon when the zoo society's board of directors held a closed-door meeting. A staff meeting at the zoo was called for this morning, but was abruptly canceled right before it was to begin, several zoo workers told The Chronicle. Mollinedo and other zoo officials did not return repeated requests for comment throughout the day, and instead opted to issue a news release at the close of the business week, a time often picked by politicians and institutions to bury potentially unfavorable news. Mollinedo was picked to head the San Francisco Zoo after a nearly six-month, nationwide search. He beat out 100 candidates and eight finalists for the position of executive director and president. /E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon(a)sfchronicle.com <mailto:rgordon@sfchronicle.com>./ http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/06/BACT114U8M.DTL -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] WEM Counters PG&E Attack On CCA
by Eric Brooks 06 Jun '08

06 Jun '08

Please note the news release sent to media. Share with your network as you deem appropriate. Thank you, Jackie. For Immediate Release Contact: Jackie Wright June 5, 2008 Wright Enterprises, 415 824.3990 Women's Energy Matters Counters PG&E Attacks on Marin Clean Energy PG&E allegations met with questions at County Board of Supervisors and Fairfax Town Council. Fairfax, CA- Investor-owned utility ('IOU') Pacific Gas and Electric Company presented its typical 'too costly, too risky' arguments against Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Tuesday and Wednesday at the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the Fairfax Town Council. At both meetings, Women's Energy Matters (WEM) Executive Director, Barbara George questioned PG&E's stability and its commitment to clean energy and praised the county's Community Choice plan, MCE, as the truly green plan. Elected officials expressed concern that PG&E itself is 'too costly and too risky.' WEM is one of only four or five public interest parties ('intervenors') in key energy cases at the California Public Utilities Commission. At the Board of Supervisors meeting, George held up a document from PG&E's Long-Term Procurement Plan, with page after page of blacked-out data, demonstrating that there's no way to verify PG&E's own costs. George also gave a brief Power Point presentation 'How Green is PG&E'' including these facts: ' As of 2002 PG&E owned the dirtiest coal power plants in New England; it lost those plants in bankruptcy ' its second bankruptcy in two years. ' Suddenly, PG&E declared itself 'Green;' however, it only offers 13% renewables and admitted to CPUC that it would miss the state mandated target of 20% by 2010. ' PG&E opposes raising the renewables target to 33% by 2020; told CPUC it wants 'other options.' PG&E's CEO has stated he wants to explore nuclear investments, and the company plans to build a pipeline to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Oregon. LNG emits almost as much greenhouse gases as coal. ' PG&E's 'Green PR' states 'We Can Do It,' but Marin Clean Energy can do it better, faster and cheaper than PG&E. Additionally, Dawn Weisz of the County's Sustainability Team, who coordinates planning for Marin Clean Energy, pointed out that PG&E made questionable assumptions in its efforts to make MCE look more costly. For example, PG&E projected a 20-year term to pay back renewable energy investments, while MCE will have a 30-year term. It also used out-dated assumptions to claim a low output from wind farms, while current windmill technology provides much more energy. PG&E has made a new proposal to satisfy the County's interest in clean energy by offering to try to get CPUC to approve a higher 'green tariff' just for Marin. Supervisor Judy Arnold pointed out inconsistencies in that proposal: 'If charging more allows PG&E to procure more renewables, how can PG&E say that MCE will have a hard time finding enough renewables'? She asked, 'How much price stability is PG&E willing to offer, so we can do a comparison'? PG&E representative David Rubin gave an indirect response: 'PG&E has a natural hedge associated with hydro and nuclear but is not completely insulated from [rising] natural gas costs.' He said he appreciated that the County wants renewable energy for price volatility protection. Later, Rubin admitted that a special green tariff for Marin Co. would likely meet stiff opposition at CPUC. PG&E's proposal has been presented to County Supervisors in private meetings; it has not yet been released to the public. Barbara George asked to meet with Supervisors to provide more information she has gleaned from her work in CPUC proceedings. Supervisor Susan Adams pointed out that in PG&E's own chart, three public power districts meet or exceed the green energy PG&E is providing - Palo Alto, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and Alameda. She questioned whether PG&E included its profits in their calculations. Supervisor Steve Kinsey responded to PG&E's warning that there's a risk if MCE falls apart. He concluded that MCE's risks were manageable; 'It's a different level of risk than we already went through with PG&E going bankrupt.' On Wednesday, another PG&E representative trotted out the same, word-for-word 'too costly, too risky' presentation to the Fairfax Town Council, which had indicated last week that it wanted to be the first city to sign the ordinance calling for the Marin Clean Energy Plan. Fairfax Vice Mayor David Weinsoff stated, 'CCA represents a new paradigm. You [PG&E] don't deal with externalities. Even if it costs a little or a moderate amount more, we can't continue down the path of more greenhouse gas emissions from imported oil and gas. We want home-grown energy.' Councilmember Larry Bragman questioned PG&E including nuclear energy as 'green.' He also pointed out that MCE's non-profit status will be a savings to ratepayers. Fairfax Mayor Mary Ann Maggiore stated, 'We have come to a point that we need to do something and give people a choice. Nothing we do can eliminate risk, but we can create opportunity. We need to move further and we need to move faster,' added Mayor Maggiore. Councilmember Lew Tremaine underscored the Mayor's sentiment. 'Financial risk vs. public safety risk; financial risk vs. planetary risk. This is a wrong-headed argument. We are at risk and it's not ok. A certain amount of financial risk is inherent in anything. We need to make a change. We won't be around if we don't,' said Tremaine. Once again, Barbara George and Dawn Weisz rebutted PG&E's claims, and other public comments strongly supported MCE. Rebekah Collins, who the Council honored last week for bringing the sustainable energy concept to Marin eight years ago, urged audience members to reach out to friends throughout the county and encourage them to ask their local officials to support MCE. Background: California's Community Choice law was approved in 2002. It enables cities and counties to control their energy purchases and benefit from competition in energy markets. Community Choice allows for low cost public financing options to dramatically increase renewables and efficiency, with little or no rate increase. A quarter of California citizens already enjoy the benefits of community-based energy systems, such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), which provides more renewable energy and efficiency per customer than any utility nationwide and offers 40% lower rates than PG&E. Video of the Board of Supervisors' and Fairfax Town council meetings will be posted at www.womensenergyymatters.org. Upcoming meetings on MCE include Ross Town Council, June 12, MCE Workshop at Marin County Fair, July 6 and the Novato City Council, July 8th. Check www.marincleanenergy.info for updates. About Women's Energy Matters Women's Energy Matters (WEM) is a network of women and men who approach energy issues from a woman's point of view. WEM works for a rapid transition to an efficient, renewable energy system, in order to promote healthy communities and ecosystems and improve international relations. WEM also celebrates the ways women have used their own energy through the ages to work for the public good. See: www.womensenergymatters.org.

1 0

[Sustain] Prop E Passes! Propose Candidates For SFPUC - & Strategy
by Eric Brooks 04 Jun '08

04 Jun '08

HI all, Prop E passed. This means that the entire San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will be re-appointed. We should get with Ross right away and discuss strategies for getting one or two Greens onto the Commission. This will be somewhat difficult because Newsom still makes all the appointments, but I don't think it is beyond imagining that we could get at least one Green put forward and approved. Please make suggestions of Green candidates who would be solid based on the criterion passed in Prop E. See: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Jun2008_LT_App… If you prefer, make suggestions to me privately and I'll present them to the Sustainability Working Group at its next meeting. peace Eric Brooks -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Nuke amdts to climate bill to be voted on soon; call your Senators
by Don Eichelberger 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

Among other things, proposals for millions for "greenhouse gas- free nuclear". I wouldn't have sent this if I did not believe in its importance. I hope you do too, Don >From: "Michael Mariotte" <nirsnet(a)nirs.org> >To: <done7777(a)sbcglobal.net> > >NUCLEAR AMENDMENTS TO CLIMATE BILL TO BE VOTED ON SOON > >CALL YOUR SENATORS! >YOUR ACTIONS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE! > > >Debate on the Senate climate change bill (now >numbered S. 3036) began on Monday and has >continued through Tuesday. Voting on >amendmentsincluding amendments to give billions >more taxpayer dollars to the nuclear power >industrywill begin as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, June 4. > >Your calls to your Senators are needed now more than ever! >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 > >If you already have called your Senators, call >again to remind them that no nuclear amendments >are acceptable, and that nuclear power has no >place in the necessary effort to address the >climate crisis. Renewable energy and energy >efficiency are faster, cheaper, safer and >cleaner ways to reduce carbon emissions and meet our electricity needs. > >And ask your parents, kids, grandchildren, the >guy at the gas station, the woman at the bank, >the person in the next cubicle, and everyone >else you know, meet and run into, to call as >well. We dont have huge budgets and hundreds of >lobbyists running all over Capitol Hillwe rely on people power. > >Your calls ARE effective and CAN make a real >difference. Call even if you think your Senators >are hopelesspart of what we need to do is >create a real buzz on Capitol Hill that millions >of Americans believe this is an important issue. > >The message to your Senators is simple: Vote >against any and all nuclear amendments to the >climate bill. The wealthy nuclear industry does >not deserve any more taxpayer dollars. Our >resources need to be spent on energy efficiency, >solar and wind power, distributed energy and smart grids. > >Please call now, and please send us a quick >e-mail letting us know you called. As always, >let us know if we can help in any way. > >Thank you! > >Michael Mariotte >Executive Director >Nuclear Information and Resource Service ><mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org>nirsnet(a)nirs.org >www.nirs.org >301-270-6477 > >Please consider making an extra $30 donation (or >$300 or $3,000, if you can!)in honor of NIRS >30th anniversary this yearon our secure website ><https://secure.campagne-online.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=2927&Lang…>here. >Help kick off our next 30 years, and our work to >build a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future, >with your most generous contribution possible. > >And if you havent done so yet, dont forget to >sign the statement on nuclear power and climate >at <http://www.nirs.org/>www.nirs.org (but >please dont sign more than once!). If youve >already signed, please ask your friends and >colleagues to sign! Weve passed 7750 >signatures, lets get to 10,000 this month! > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on >this list because you signed up on our website, >at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition, or >directly to NIRS. Your name and address are >never sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason. > >For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send >an e-mail to nirsnet(a)nirs.org. If you have >friends or colleagues who would like to be on >this list, have them send a note to nirsnet(a)nirs.org > > Don Eichelberger DJ Fix Independent Productions My Blog www.greenuprising.blogspot.com My You Tube <http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix>http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix My Space http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix Donny Fix del.icio.us book marks http://del.icio.us/donnyfix The Hegelian/Marxist goal is emancipation. Marx said it best in 1843: "Human emancipation wll only be complete when the real, individual man (sic) is absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his every day life, in his work and in his relationships, he has become a species-being (politically accountabe to the whole); and when he recognizes and realizes his own power as social powers, so that he no longer separates this social power from himself as political power."

1 0

[Sustain] BIG News! Cal ISO Power Plant Letter To Newsom!
by Eric Brooks 03 Jun '08

03 Jun '08

Hi all, See attached. This communication shows clearly that we were misled by SFPUC staff and that the new Peaker plant is not necessary. peace Eric Brooks

1 0

[Sustain] Santa Fe, NM Bus Riding Jump Linked To Gas Costs
by Eric Brooks 02 Jun '08

02 Jun '08

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTEwNDY3OA== June 1, 2008 Bus ridership jump linked to gas costs " Mike Trujillo clung to the bar overhead as the city bus jostled through rush-hour traffic. He stood for the beginning of his ride because every seat on the Cerrillos Road bus was occupied by hip-to-hip passengers, and six others also surfed the bus aisle that afternoon. Full buses used to be an oddity for Santa Fe's public transportation system, but as the price of fuel climbs toward $4 per gallon, more people are using the system than ever. Last month, ridership on Santa Fe Trails increased about 14 percent over April 2007, and, although numbers are not compiled for May, both bus drivers and riders say buses get more crowded by the day. "I hear people all the time, constantly, talking about how the prices of gas are going up and they are going to start riding the bus," said driver Sonya Lopez. Friday's national gas-price averages continued at record highs of $3.96 per gallon, with a state average at $3.90 and a Santa Fe average of $3.89 per gallon. Lopez has been a driver for three years, but during the last three weeks she's started to notice more passengers on her Route 6, which serves the southeastern edge of town. Instead of two or three passengers heading home on a recent afternoon, her bus had nearly a dozen. Back on the Cerrillos Road Route 2, Trujillo began his ride around Fifth Street at about 5 p.m., heading home Friday from work to an apartment along Airport Road. A broken starter on his car was the impetus for his sojourn into public transit, but now that he's gotten used to the idea, Trujillo said he might just sell the junker. "It's a lot cheaper now to ride the bus," he said. "It's the gas. It's going way up. It's too too much." Another bonus of riding, he said after nabbing the seat of a departing passenger, is that he avoids the frustration of piloting past construction on Cerrillos Road. Instead, the 36-year-old was striking up conversations with the driver and running into an old Capital High School classmate he hadn't seen in years. Retiree Gerry Arnold seemed glad to have a seat across the aisle on his trip home from volunteering at a Plaza tourist information booth. Arnold has been riding the bus downtown two times a week for about three weeks since he got fed up with both gas costs and downtown parking. For seniors who pay 50-cent fares, it's a much cheaper alternative. "I probably will go downtown a lot more now," he said. Arnold drives from his home in Park Plazas to the Santa Fe Place mall to catch the bus, a trick several teenagers also used last week. Teens also get the 50-cent fare, while adults pay $1. Increases in transit ridership are good for the city and its residents, said Santa Fe Transit Division Director Jon Bulthuis, who said gas-price hikes have had an obvious correlation with ridership. "What I see as a good value out of this is that people are becoming aware of an asset that was already in the community and they are starting to make choices that are both good for their personal budgets, but are also good for reducing traffic congestion and all the positive environmental things that go along with public transportation." Although one gripe about the system is that lesser-used routes are not as frequent as the Cerrillos Road spine, Bulthuis said greater ridership could change that. "The more we see people taking advantage of the system, the more likely it will be that the council will look to add services," he said. Other public transit systems are also seeing more riders, including services to rural communities such as Española and Taos provided by the North Central Regional Transit District, and the Northern New Mexico Park and Ride commuter buses provided by the state. Ridership between Santa Fe and Los Alamos jumped by 13 percent between April 2007 and last month, and about 44 percent more workers than last year are riding those buses between Santa Fe and Albuquerque, a figure that takes into a account that bus service became more frequent on the route during that time. The state has also invested $400 million in a commuter train that is already running in the Albuquerque area and will link to Santa Fe by the end of the year. Additional services are planned toward the end the year including later service on Route 2 and greater frequency on Route 4. /Contact Julie Ann Grimm <mailto:jgrimm@sfnewmexican.com> at 986-3017 or jgrimm(a)sfnewmexican.com./ [iCopyright] © 2008 The New Mexican, Inc.. Permission granted for up to 6 e-mails. All rights reserved. You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing | http://license.icopyright.net/3.7515?icx_id=Bus-ridership-jump-linked-to-ga… | <http://license.icopyright.net/3.7515?icx_id=Bus-ridership-jump-linked-to-ga…> into any web browser. The New Mexican, Inc. and The Santa Fe New Mexican logos are registered trademarks of The New Mexican, Inc.. The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Refocusing On Near Term Tasks (SFPUC - MTA)
by Eric Brooks 01 Jun '08

01 Jun '08

Hi all, I sent a longer message to the Active list to get some near term tasks in gear. We've already done some back and forth discussion on these but I am stating them here so we can re-focus specifically on these tasks. 1) This November, there will likely be a Public/Green Power Initiative on the ballot, which may also include a district -elected- SF Public Utilities Commission. We need to gear big time into pushing this initiative to victory, make sure it -does- have a district elected Commission, and then work hard to get 2-3 greens elected to that incredibly key commission of 5, which will do no less than help lead the very future of our planet. 2) Before opportunity 1 comes into play, it is possible that, this Tuesday, the SFPUC reform initiative will pass and the entire SF Public Utilities Commission will then be entirely re-appointed. If measure E passes, we need to work hard with Ross -immediately- to get a Green or two put onto that Commission. Our Core argument for disproportionate representation of Greens, is that we are much more cutting edge than other parties on energy and water policy and the City should let us take the lead. The Sustainability working group is on this but will need help to make sure the gains take place. 3) Jake McGoldrick's measure for an elected Municipal Transportation board will likely also be on the November ballot and we need to get -on top- of helping craft that initiative so that it creates a board elected either by proportional representation or by district. Every month we have been calling joint Transpo/Sustainability working group meetings, but only Sustainability members have been showing up. We need one or two people to step up to the plate on transportation right away so that we can work directly with Jake on making that elected board happen - hopefully establishing the first body elected by proportional representation in the City. peace Eric

1 0