January 2009 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] UK Jewish MP: Israel Like Nazis In Gaza (YouTube)
by Eric Brooks 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

1 0

[Sustain] German Protesters Dare To Compare Israelis To Nazis
by Eric Brooks 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46234,opinion,gaza-european-protestors-dare-t… German protestors dare to compare Israelis to Nazis Protestors against the Israeli incursion into Gaza demonstrate in Dusseldorf, Germany European guilt about the Holocaust is receding in the face of Israeli aggression – and there’s nothing anti-semitic about it By Neil Clark FIRST POSTED JANUARY 6, 2008 As a Jew, it's very moving to see so many people who are so outraged at Israel's actions," said the comedian Alexei Sayle after Saturday's 10,000-strong anti-war protest in London. He would certainly be moved by the reaction of the people of Europe to Israel's military aggression. Last weekend thousands of Europeans took part in anti-Israel demonstrations. In Paris, around 25,0000 demonstrators, many wearing Palestinian headscarves, marched through the city chanting slogans such as "Israel killers" and "We are all Palestinians". In the Netherlands, thousands marched through Amsterdam, criticising the Israeli attacks and the Dutch government's failure to condemn them. One banner declared: "Anne Frank is turning in her grave. Oh Israel!" Protestors have not been afraid to compare Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews. In Stockholm, protestors set fire to an Israeli flag painted with a swastika. In Madrid more than 1,000 people marched, many carrying banners equating Zionism with Nazism. One banner declared: "This is not a war but a genocide". Anti-Israel protestors in Belgrade Some of the biggest demonstrations were in countries where for historical reasons, people have previously felt particularly inhibited about expressing criticism of the Jewish state. In Salzburg in Austria around 2,500 people took to the streets. In Germany there were sizeable demonstrations in several cities: around 10,000 people protested in Frankfurt, a further 7,000 in Berlin. In Dusseldorf protestors held up a doll representing a bleeding baby with the placard "Made in Israel". The significance of these protests cannot be underestimated. For most of the first 60 years of its existence, Israel got an easy ride from Europeans due to European guilt over the Holocaust. But as revulsion over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians grows, the 'Holocaust card' - long used by Zionists in order to stifle legitimate debate over Israel's actions - no longer has the same impact. Zionists will, of course, claim that the growing European opposition to Israel is a sign that the continent is reverting to anti-semitism; the staunchly pro-Israel commentator Melanie Phillips has already dismissed the anti-Israel protestors as "leftists, Jew-haters, Muslims and useful idiots". But the most striking thing about the demonstrations to date has been the absence of anti-semitism. Anger is rising across Europe, but it is anger directed against the state of Israel - not Jews in general; in fact in some demonstrations, such as the one in London, Jewish groups themselves took part. "Everybody is somebody's Jew. And the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis", the Jewish writer and holocaust survivor Primo Levi once famously remarked. It seems an increasing number of people across Europe are coming to the same conclusion. FIRST POSTED JANUARY 6, 2008 -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Don Eichelberger has forwarded an article to you from CommonDreams.org: International Energy Agency 'Blocking Global Switch to Renewables'
by done7777＠sbcglobal.net 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

1 0

[Sustain] Transpo/Sustainability Meeting Tue, Jan 20?
by Eric Brooks 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

Hi all, Who's up for a joint Transportation/Sustainability meeting on Tuesday the 20th at 6:30pm? (Keep in mind the 20th is inauguration day.) cheers Eric B -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

4 10

[Sustain] USDA Poised To OK Ethanol Corn As First Industrial Genetic Engineered Crop
by Eric Brooks 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

<http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org> USDA Proposes First-Ever Industrial GE Crop Dear Eric, USDA is poised to deregulate the world's first genetically engineered (GE) industrial crop. _Similar to GE pharma crops that use corn for producing drugs, Syngenta's "Event 3272" is genetically engineered to use corn for energy (ethanol) production and not for food._ This unprecedented, industrial application of a GE technology poses a variety of environmental, health, and economic risks that must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the widespread use of this GE industrial corn crop should be allowed on farms across our nation. In a "business as usual" move, USDA has fast-tracked the commercialization of this GE industrial corn and has forgone conducting a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS), as required by law. Instead, USDA is basing its decision to approve the industrial GE corn upon a cursory and incomplete Environmental Assessment (EA) that falls woefully short of the thorough review the public expects before a new GE crop is approved. Moreover, USDA has failed to acknowledge that this GE technology requires even greater scrutiny since it transforms a ubiquitous food crop ---corn--- into an industrial crop --- ethanol--- making it no longer fit for human consumption. _The Obama Administration's USDA must complete a full EIS to address these concerns. The agency is accepting public comments only until January 20, 2009._ *Event 3272 corn:* * _Raises serious environmental and human health concerns_. It contains an exotic enzyme derived from "thermophilic" (heat-loving) microorganisms living near deep sea hydrothermal vents. This enzyme might be capable of causing food allergies in people who inadvertently consume this corn. Humans have never been exposed to this form of alpha amylase before (no history of safe use). * _While meant for fuel and not food, this corn will enter the food supply_. USDA admits that if Event 3272 corn is intentionally or accidentally diverted into the food supply, it could negatively impact food quality. But instead of reviewing the foreseeable negative impacts of biological contamination to organic and conventional corn from this unprecedented new industrial crop, USDA has improperly relied on Syngenta, the creator of the GE corn, to protect non-industrial corn from contamination. If we learned anything from the StarLink episode, it is that voluntary, industry-led agreements to curtail contamination do not work in the real world. * _Is not needed "to help the U.S. meet its goals for ethanol production"_ as USDA has erroneously suggested. Ethanol production from corn surpassed the 2012 target (7.5 billion gallons) in 2007 (8.2 billion gallons)! And with 10 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2008, we're well on the way to achieving the mandate for 2022 without the introduction of Event 3272 corn. * _Is engineered for fuel, not food._ The dramatic worldwide surge in food prices last year -- which has already pushed 100 million more of the world's poor into hunger and poverty -- has caused a radical rethinking of how biofuels are produced, especially the use of corn for ethanol. Food experts from academia to the World Bank have decried the massive diversion of corn from food to fuel, blaming it for at least part of the steep price increases in food staples like corn, wheat and rice. Event 3272 corn will only exacerbate this situation. _Tell USDA to halt this approval until a full EIS has been completed that addresses the human health, environmental, and economic impacts this industrial corn presents. USDA is accepting public comments until January 20th---Send your comment today!_ <http://ga3.org/campaign/EthanolCorn/8un56k84pj7mb6j6?> Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016 Below is the sample letter: Subject: Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016 Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here], Docket No. APHIS?2007?0016, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A?03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737?1238. I am writing regarding Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016, Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Availability of Petition and Environmental Assessment for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically Engineered To Produce an Enzyme That Facilitates Ethanol Production. I strongly oppose commercial introduction of Event 3272 corn unless and until a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) addresses and resolves the serious human health, environmental, and economic issues that Event 3272 raises. Syngenta's "Event 3272" corn is genetically engineered to facilitate easier conversion to ethanol, and is not meant for human consumption. This first-ever industrial GE corn presents a multitude of serious health, environmental, and economic concerns that have not been adequately assessed in USDA's cursory and incomplete Environmental Assessment (EA). Event 3272 corn contains an exotic enzyme derived from "thermophilic" (heat-loving) microorganisms living near deep sea hydrothermal vents. Syngenta's alpha amylase is generated at extremely high levels in the corn kernels themselves. Humans have never been exposed to this form of alpha amylase before(no history of safe use). We know some versions of this enzyme (from fungi) cause respiratory allergies, which are closely related to food allergies. And Syngenta's corn-embedded enzyme has two characteristic properties of food allergens: it's extremely resistant to breakdown by heat, and it tolerates somewhat acidic conditions. Thus it will likely survive food processing and may withstand gastric juices intact, which means a higher likelihood of triggering allergic reactions. There's no doubt Event 3272 will enter the food supply. Corn cross-pollinates at great distances, and there are absolutely no requirements to plant this industrial corn away from food-gra de corn. Instead of reviewing the foreseeable negative impacts of biological contamination to organic and conventional corn from this industrial crop, USDA has improperly relied on Syngenta to protect non-industrial corn from contamination. If we have learned anything from the StarLink episode, it is that voluntary, industry-led agreements to curtail contamination do not work in the real world. StarLink was a GE corn variety only approved for animal feed, not the human food supply. Despite grower agreements and voluntary stewardship measures, it massively contaminated the food supply, costing farmers, food companies, and taxpayers millions of dollars in recalls and lost sales. This experience, along with other contamination episodes, showed us that weather, pollen flow, and basic human error are simply unavoidable once GE crops are released in the open environment. To approve another non-food corn crop based solely on Syngenta's word that they will police themselves is irresponsible and ignores the realities of farming, food production, human error, and basic ecology. Thus far, none of our major corn export markets have cleared Event 3272 for import and any corn shipments contaminated with Event 3272 are likely to be rejected by Japan, Korea and other GE-sensitive markets. APHIS claims that Event 3272 corn is needed "to help the U.S. meet its goals for ethanol production." Congress set certain targets for ethanol production in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This is the sole reason given for the supposed need for Event 3272 corn. However, ethanol production from corn surpassed the 2012 target (7.5 billion gallons) last year in 2007 (8.2 billion gallons)! And with 10 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2008, we're well on the way to achieving the mandate for 2022 without the introduction of Event 3272 corn. Of course, the dramatic worldwide surge in food prices last year--which has already pushed 100 million more of the world's poor into hunger and poverty--has caused a radical rethinking of biofuels. Food experts from academia to the World Bank have decried the massive diversion of corn from food to fuel, blaming it for at least part of the steep price increases in basic staples like corn, wheat and rice. In 2007, U.S. farmers devoted a full 23% of the 13 billion bushel corn harvest to ethanol production. In 2008, the percentage rose to 30%. Event 3272 poses unacceptable risks to human health, the environment, and the economic well-being of family farmers. It is not needed to meet U.S. biofuels production targets. And even if it were, the food crisis makes painfully clear what should have been obvious all along: that diverting stupendous quantities of staple food crops (e.g. 30% of U.S. corn) to feed automobiles has dramatically increased the price of not only corn, but all primary staple crops, and is driving hunger th roughout the world. Sincerely, Eric Brooks <http://ga3.org/campaign/EthanolCorn/8un56k84pj7mb6j6?> Take Action! Instructions: Click here to take action <http://ga3.org/campaign/EthanolCorn/8un56k84pj7mb6j6?> on this issue Tell-A-Friend: Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. Tell-a-Friend! <http://ga3.org/campaign/EthanolCorn/forward/8un56k84pj7mb6j6?> What's At Stake: USDA is poised to deregulate the world's first genetically engineered (GE) industrial crop. Similar to GE pharma crops that use corn for producing drugs, Syngenta's "Event 3272" is genetically engineered to use corn for energy (ethanol) production and not for food. This unprecedented, industrial application of a GE technology poses a variety of environmental, health, and economic risks that must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the widespread use of this GE industrial corn crop should be allowed on farms across our nation. In a "business as usual" move, USDA has fast-tracked the commercialization of this GE industrial corn and has forgone conducting a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS), as required by law.Instead, USDA is basing its decision to approve the industrial GE corn upon a shorter assessment that falls woefully short of the thorough review the law requires before a new GE crop is approved. Moreover, USDA has failed to acknowledge that this GE technology requires even greater scrutiny since it transforms a ubiquitous food crop--corn--into an industrial crop --ethanol--making it no longer fit for human consumption. The Obama Administration's USDA must complete a full EIS to address these concerns. The agency is accepting public comments only until January 20, 2009. Event 3272 corn contains an exotic enzyme derived from "thermophilic" (heat-loving) microorganisms living near deep sea hydrothermal vents. The enzyme --alpha-amylase--breaks down starches into complex sugars. Syngenta's alpha amylase is generated at extremely high levels in the corn kernels themselves for the purpose of eliminating one step in ethanol production and save a little money. The trouble is that this enzyme might be capable of causing food allergies in people who inadvertently consume this corn. Humans have never been exposed to this form of alpha amylase before. But, we know some versions of this enzyme (from fungi) cause respiratory allergies, which are closely related to food allergies. Syngenta's corn-embedded enzyme has two characteristic properties of food allergens: it's extremely resistant to breakdown by heat, and it tolerates somewhat acidic conditions. Thus it will likely survive food processing and may withstand gastric juices intact, which means a higher likelihood of triggering allergic reactions. Despite the fact that this GE corn is meant strictly for industrial use, USDA admits that if Event 3272 corn is intentionally or accidentally diverted into the food supply, it could negatively impact food quality. And there's no doubt Event 3272 will enter the food supply. Corn cross-pollinates at great distances, and there are absolutely no requirements to plant this industrial corn away from food-grade corn. Instead of reviewing the foreseeable negative impacts of biological contamination on organic and conventional corn from Event 3272 corn, USDA has merely relied on Syngenta, the creator of the GE corn, to protect non-industrial corn from contamination. If we have learned anything from the StarLink episode, it is that voluntary, industry-led agreements to curtail contamination do not work in the real world. StarLink was a GE corn variety only approved for animal feed, not the human food supply, because leading allergists said it might cause food allergies. Despite grower agreements and voluntary stewardship measures, it massively contaminated the food supply, costing farmers, food companies, and taxpayers millions of dollars in recalls and lost sales. This experience, along with other contamination episodes, showed us that weather, pollen flow, and basic human error are simply unavoidable once GE crops are released in the open environment. To approve another non-food corn crop based solely on Syngenta's word that they will police themselves is irresponsible and ignores the realities of farming, food production, human error, and basic ecology. Thus far, none of our major corn export markets have cleared Event 3272 for impo rt and, therefore, any corn shipments contaminated with Event 3272 are likely to be rejected by Japan, Korea and other GE-sensitive markets. So why is USDA even considering going down this road again? In the draft approval document APHIS claims that Event 3272 corn is needed "to help the U.S. meet its goals for ethanol production." Yet Congress?s targets for ethanol production in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 have already surpassed the 2012 target (7.5 billion gallons) in 2007 (8.2 billion gallons)! And with 10 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2008, we're well on the way to achieving the mandate for 2022 without the introduction of Event 3272 corn. The dramatic worldwide surge in food prices last year--which unfortunately has already pushed 100 million more of the world's poor into hunger and poverty--has caused a radical and necessary rethinking of biofuels. Food experts from academia to the World Bank have decried the massive diversion of corn from food to fuel, blaming it for at least part of the steep price increases in food staples like corn, wheat and rice., Unbelievable as it may seem, U.S. farmers devoted a full 23% of the 13 billion bushel corn harvest to ethanol production in 2007 and in 2008, that percentage rose to 30%. Event 3272 poses unacceptable risks to human health, the environment, and the economic well-being of farmers, and is not needed to meet U.S. biofuels production targets. And even if it were, the food crisis makes painfully clear what should have been obvious all along: that diverting stupendous quantities of staple food crops (i.e. 30% of U.S. corn) to feed automobiles has dramatically increased the price not only of corn, but also of all primary staple crops driving hunger throughout the world. _Tell USDA to halt this approval until a full EIS has been completed that addresses the human health, environmental, and economic impacts this industrial_ corn presents. USDA is accepting public comments until January 20th--Send your comment today! Campaign Expiration Date: January 21, 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Center for Food Safety <http://ga3.org/cfs/join.html?r=37eJFssarupyE>. This message was sent to brookse32(a)aim.com. Visit your subscription management page <http://ga3.org/cfs/smp.tcl?nkey=8un56k84pj7mb6j6&> to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Center for Food Safety, click to remove <http://ga3.org/cfs/remove-domain-direct.tcl?ctx=center&nkey=8un56k84pj7mb6j…> yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line). <http://www.convio.com>

1 0

[Sustain] Natural Gas Fields Off Coast Of Gaza
by Eric Brooks 12 Jan '09

12 Jan '09

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680 <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680> War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields by Michel Chossudovsky Global Research <http://www.globalresearch.ca>, January 8, 2009 /Email this article to a friend/ <javascript:sendarticle('sendEmailLink', 'War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza`s Offshore Gas Fields');> /Print this article/ <javascript:printarticle(11680);> StumbleUpon Submit <http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2F…> The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves. This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline. British Gas (BG Group) <http://www.bg-group.com/OurBusiness/WhereWeOperate/Pages/pgIsraelandAreasof…> and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company <http://www.ccc.gr/> (CCC) owned by Lebanon's Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority. The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007). The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001). The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine. The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: *Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. *Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine's gas reserves could be much larger. Map 1 Map 2 *Who Owns the Gas Fields* The issue of sovereignty over Gaza's gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine. The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish /de facto/ control over Gaza's offshore gas reserves. British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields. The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine's sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that "Israel would never buy gas from Palestine" intimating that Gaza's offshore gas reserves belong to Israel. In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza's offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003) The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas. In 2006, British Gas "was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt." (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt. The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority." The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians. Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority: "*Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government*." (Ibid, emphasis added) The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat. Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza's offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel. The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended: "Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror". (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on "The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas," March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza's Coastal Waters Threaten Israel's National Security? <http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID…> Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007) Israel's intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website <http://www.bg-group.com/OurBusiness/WhereWeOperate/Pages/pgIsraelandAreasof…>). *Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board* The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under "Operation Cast Lead" was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources: "Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas."(Barak Ravid, Operation "Cast Lead": Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11521> Haaretz, December 27, 2008) That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza's natural gas: "Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel's wish to renew the talks. The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel's request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials." (Globes online- Israel's Business Arena, June 23, 2008) The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage. Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new "post war" political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government. In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th. In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG's offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008) "Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government's decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year. The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender." (Globes Nov. 13, 2008) *Gaza and Energy Geopolitics * The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law. What can we expect in the wake of the invasion? What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine's Natural Gas reserves? A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or "peacekeeping" troops? The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel? The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza's maritime areas? If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel's offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above). These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel's energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport - pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a /proposed /Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. "What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2824>Global Research, July 23, 2006) Map 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: 299 Valencia Appeal of CU for too much parking
by Eric Brooks 12 Jan '09

12 Jan '09

Hi Everyone, I don't know that the SFGP, via the Transportation Working Group, has taken a position on this matter. In short, the developer of 299 Valencia got a Conditional Use permit from the Planning Commission to increase parking in the development from .5:1 (one parking space for every two units) to .75:1. A number of groups and individuals are appealing this to the newly seated Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, at 4 pm or later. I hope to be there supporting the appeal. See the letter for details. Sue --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Jason Henderson <jhenders(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: From: Jason Henderson <jhenders(a)sbcglobal.net> Subject: [Carfreeliving] 299 Valencia Appeal of CU for too much parking To: Carfreeliving(a)livablecity.org Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 7:08 AM Friends, Happy New Year. The Appeal of the CU for parking at 299 Valencia is on for Tuesday, Jan 13th, 4pm "time certain." That means it could be at 4 or anytime after, but not before 4. Please try and attend and speak in favor of the appeal. Attached is the appeal letter from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, for background and talking points. Thanks, -jh -- Jason Henderson San Francisco, CA (415)-255-8136 jhenders(a)sbcglobal.net _______________________________________________ Carfreeliving(a)livablecity.org mailing list to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF To unsubscribe: mailto:Carfreeliving-request@livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe or, for all options, go to: http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org

1 0

[Sustain] Please Propose Amendments To Maxwell Clean Energy Act
by Eric Brooks 09 Jan '09

09 Jan '09

Hi all, As I previously noted, Supervisor Maxwell has introduced a measure to close Mirant power plant and adopt the Prop H clean energy benchmarks. Now for the critical next step. In its current form the legislation is -very- weak and contains no -mandates- for the clean energy targets, no actual firm closure date for Mirant, no strong public power language, and no accountability mechanisms to make certain that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission staff complies with the ordinance and completes tasks on schedule. I have re-attached the ordinance text. Please take a look at it again and email to the list your proposals for amendments, or even entirely new language, to enact the objectives of Prop H at the Board of Supervisors. I and others on this list will likely be meeting with Maxwell and other supervisors soon and we need your feedback to take with us. peace Eric B -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Israel Broke Ceasefire & Planned Assault 6 Months Ago
by Eric Brooks 04 Jan '09

04 Jan '09

Just so no one confused about how the Gaza crisis began, see this December 31st Haaretz report describing how Israel planned its assault on Gaza 6 months ago, just as it was cynically agreeing to a ceasefire. The article also shows that it was Israel which broke the ceasefire by attacking Gaza. Haaretz is the main mainstream daily newspaper for Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html Last update - 16:39 12/31/2008 Disinformation, secrecy and lies: How the Gaza offensive came about By Barak Ravid <mailto:barakravid80@gmail.com>, Haaretz Correspondent Tags: Hamas <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/tags/index.jhtml?tag=Hamas>, Israel <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/tags/index.jhtml?tag=Israel>, Gaza <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/tags/index.jhtml?tag=Gaza> Long-term preparation, careful gathering of information, secret discussions, operational deception and the misleading of the public - all these stood behind the Israel Defense Forces "Cast Lead" operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip, which began Saturday morning. The disinformation effort, according to defense officials, took Hamas by surprise and served to significantly increase the number of its casualties in the strike. Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. According to the sources, Barak maintained that although the lull would allow Hamas to prepare for a showdown with Israel, the Israeli army needed time to prepare, as well. Advertisement Barak gave orders to carry out a comprehensive intelligence-gathering drive which sought to map out Hamas' security infrastructure, along with that of other militant organizations operating in the Strip. This intelligence-gathering effort brought back information about permanent bases, weapon silos, training camps, the homes of senior officials and coordinates for other facilities. The plan of action that was implemented in Operation Cast Lead remained only a blueprint until a month ago, when tensions soared after the IDF carried out an incursion into Gaza during the ceasefire to take out a tunnel which the army said was intended to facilitate an attack by Palestinian militants on IDF troops. On November 19, following dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar rounds which exploded on Israeli soil, the plan was brought for Barak's final approval. Last Thursday, on December 18, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the defense minister met at IDF headquarters in central Tel Aviv to approve the operation. However, they decided to put the mission on hold to see whether Hamas would hold its fire after the expiration of the ceasefire. They therefore put off bringing the plan for the cabinet's approval, but they did inform Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of the developments. That night, in speaking to the media, sources in the Prime Minister's Bureau said that "if the shooting from Gaza continues, the showdown with Hamas would be inevitable." On the weekend, several ministers in Olmert's cabinet inveighed against him and against Barak for not retaliating for Hamas' Qassam launches. "This chatter would have made Entebe or the Six Day War impossible," Barak said in responding to the accusations. The cabinet was eventually convened on Wednesday, but the Prime Minister's Bureau misinformed the media in stating the discussion would revolve around global jihad. The ministers learned only that morning that the discussion would actually pertain to the operation in Gaza. In its summary announcement for the discussion, the Prime Minister's Bureau devoted one line to the situation in Gaza, compared to one whole page that concerned the outlawing of 35 Islamic organizations. What actually went on at the cabinet meeting was a five-hour discussion about the operation in which ministers were briefed about the various blueprints and plans of action. "It was a very detailed review," one minister said. The minister added: "Everyone fully understood what sort of period we were heading into and what sort of scenarios this could lead to. No one could say that he or she did not know what they were voting on." The minister also said that the discussion showed that the lessons of the Winograd Committee about the performance of decision-makers during the 2006 Second Lebanon War were "fully internalized." At the end of the discussion, the ministers unanimously voted in favor of the strike, leaving it for the prime minister, the defense minister and the foreign minister to work out the exact time. While Barak was working out the final details with the officers responsible for the operation, Livni went to Cairo to inform Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, that Israel had decided to strike at Hamas. In parallel, Israel continued to send out disinformation in announcing it would open the crossings to the Gaza Strip and that Olmert would decide whether to launch the strike following three more deliberations on Sunday - one day after the actual order to launch the operation was issued. "Hamas evacuated all its headquarter personnel after the cabinet meeting on Wednesday," one defense official said, "but the organization sent its people back in when they heard that everything was put on hold until Sunday." The final decision was made on Friday morning, when Barak met with Chief of Staff General Gabi Ashkenazi, the head of the Shin Bet Security Service Yuval Diskin and the head of the Military Intelligence Directorate, Amos Yadlin. Barak sat down with Olmert and Livni several hours later for a final meeting, in which the trio gave the air force its orders. On Friday night and on Saturday morning, opposition leaders and prominent political figures were informed about the impending strike, including Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, Yisrael Beuiteinu's Avigdor Liebermen, Haim Oron from Meretz and President Shimon Peres, along with Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik. previously, I wrote: Yes, and the SFGP needs to back up that GPUS call with open and strong support. We need to to show San Franciscans who have been brow beaten into silence that the tide is turning and that they are empowered to speak up. And we need to call for the City government to boycott and divest from Israel. We should also send a similar message to San Francisco student organizations, and colleges/universities, which calls on them to act. peace Eric Mark wrote: > The GPUS has already done so....... > > The Green Party has called for an end to US military aid to Israel and > supports the movement for international boycott, divestment, and > sanctions against Israel until Israel ends the occupation, obeys > international law (including Geneva Conventions and the UN's Universal > Declaration of Human Rights), and guarantees full human rights for > Palestinians. The party supports efforts by Palestinian and Israeli > peace groups towards a nonviolent negotiated resolution to the conflict. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > *To:* active green <active(a)sfgreens.org>; SFGP CC <cc(a)sfgreens.org> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:41:40 PM > *Subject:* [SFGP-A] The SFGP Must Take A Stand On Israel > > It is time for the SFGP to take a stand and strongly support a full > global boycott of and divestment from Israel. > > I would ask that this matter be urgently agendized for our January GM > meeting. > > Israel has proven that it is never going to change without being > forced to do so through massive economic pressure. > > peace > > Eric > > Mark wrote: >> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List >> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >> > > -- > "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Need To Decide On Jan Meeting Day/Time
by Eric Brooks 02 Jan '09

02 Jan '09

Hi all, This is a very important month for both Transportation (Transbay/High Speed Rail/Likely Fare Hikes) - and Sustainability policy (BIG stuff on clean energy, power plants and an animal rendering biofuel plant). Since the GM day/time was changed to fourth Wednesdays we need to choose a new regular day/time so that we are ahead of the monthly County Council meeting on the third Wednesday. I propose that we meet on the third -Tuesday- each month, which would give us a January 20 meeting this month. If everyone is ok with it, lets just keep the time at 6:30pm - leading with Transportation issues. Affirmations?/Suggestions? peace Eric -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0