- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] Christmas/New Year Eco Present - Inspiring Speech By Naomi Klein On Blocking Tar Sands Exploitation!
by Eric Brooks 25 Dec '11

25 Dec '11

Christmas & New Year Present! Inspiring Speech By Naomi Klein, on how the Canadian tar sands are the front line of the fight to save the Earth, and how we -will- stop the corporations from mining them. The Keystone Pipeline has been halted. A full blockade of tar sands oil exploitation is next! Listen at: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/56564 <http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/56564>

1 0

[Sustain] Composting Toilets For SF!
by Eric Brooks 10 Dec '11

10 Dec '11

Hi again all, Around our stand against the SFPUC giving away toxic sewage sludge as fertilizer, I was also recently quoted as a Green sustainability organizer in a couple of articles about the possibility of San Francisco beginning a shift to composting toilets. The first article is the best one. (The second article incorrectly states that the SFPUC 'pooh poohed' the concept - it in fact did not do so and is in the preliminary study phase of the idea.) You can see the very promising SFPUC report on composting toilets at http://ourcitysf.org/Composting_Toilets_SFPUC.pdf Here are the articles and the URLs to them: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/12/09/are-there-public-composting-toilets… http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/12/san-francisco-takes-sniff-compostin… Are There Public Composting Toilets in San Francisco's Future? By Tilde Herrera Published December 09, 2011 Are There Public Composting Toilets in San Francisco's Future? If a local activist gets his way, the City of San Francisco could become one of the first in the nation to pilot test a composting toilet system. Eric Brooks, chair of the San Francisco Green Party's sustainability working group, has proposed that the city test several composting toilet models outdoors and in public buildings to determine if it is feasible to deploy the units citywide. He views a comprehensive composting toilet system as a way to address the city's aging sewers, save water, reduce the use of sterilization chemicals and potentially create hundreds of green jobs in the process. Brooks has been advocating composting toilets to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for more than a year. An informational report commissioned by the agency on composting toilets was released in October, finding that while a composting toilet is more expensive that a conventional one, there may be a cost advantage in cases where significant sewer upgrades are necessary or if water and energy prices increase. Diverting human bathroom waste toward organic composting, rather than separating the human waste from wastewater, would reduce treatment costs and free wastewater treatment plants to focus on removing chemicals and other biological input from the water system. At the same time, the potential for water savings in the city could be significant. "If every toilet in the city was a composting toilet, that would save over 5 billion gallons per year because each (composting) toilet saves 6,600 gallons per person per year," said Brooks, who is also campaign coordinator at the grassroots organization Our City. Seattle, Austin and New York are among the U.S. cities that have explored public composting toilets, but perhaps not quite at the same scale as Brooks' proposal. The local business community, he believes, would be able to save both water and money, similar to their adoption of energy efficiency technologies. "Businesses will want to switch to something that saves them more water, just as they wanted to switch to things that saved them electricity," Water stress and scarcity, Brooks noted, promise to become even more acute in the coming years because of climate change. "If we get ahead of this in time over the next few decades, we will be solving a climate-induced water crisis before it happens." ~ http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/12/san-francisco-takes-sniff-compostin… San Francisco takes a sniff at composting toilets By: Sarah Gantz | 12/07/11 Examiner Staff Writer Recycling: The contents of composting toilets are collected in a basin, separating liquids from solids. After the waste hardens, it can be used as compost. A porcelain throne that turns its contents into fertilizer instead of flushing could revolutionize the way The City does business, environmental activists say. Composting toilets, which do not use water, could provide relief for San Francisco’s deteriorated sewer system and its public defecation problem, said Eric Brooks, who brought the idea to the Public Utilities Commission. “They could make sense everywhere there is a toilet,” said Brooks, chair of the San Francisco Green Party’s sustainability working group. “They’re not just for outhouses in the mountains anymore,” he said. After Brooks suggested the idea at several meetings, commission Vice President Art Torres asked staff to compile a report on the product that confirms — in a section titled “Odor Issues” — that today’s composting toilets are not the rank holes in the ground of backwoods lore. Composting toilets, according to the report, work this way: Instead of emptying into sewer pipes, the contents are collected in basins, separating liquid from solid. Once the waste hardens, it’s emptied and brought to farms. Correctly installed and operating composting toilets have a ventilation system and constant suction through the toilet to prevent noxious odors. But commission spokesman Tyrone Jue pointed out several problems The City could face, including where to bring the compost, the health and safety of removing the stuff and the cost of retrofitting buildings. “I don’t want to say it’s not possible, but we also have to think about these other challenges,” Jue said. Though the commission has pooh-poohed the idea of permanent composting toilets, Tenderloin community organizers think a portable prototype could play an integral role in addressing a shortage of public lavatories in that neighborhood. Clean City and the North of Market/Tenderloin Community Benefit District are working with environmentally minded Hyphae Design Laboratory to create a portable composting toilet they say would be less expensive to install and maintain because it would not need electricity or plumbing. “We’ve been working hard to clean up the Tenderloin and this is another step,” said Gia Grant, executive director of Clean City. If the project stays on schedule, the Tenderloin could have a new toilet by this summer. But because it will need approval from several city agencies, it’s possible things will get backed up. sgantz(a)sfexaminer.com

1 0

[Sustain] Very Important Audio About City's CleanPowerSF Program
by Eric Brooks 10 Dec '11

10 Dec '11

Hi all, I was interviewed a few days ago as a sustainability organizer for the SF Green Party on the Progressive Radio Network radio program 'Political Analysis' around the CleanPowerSF program; and I was given a full half hour to really flesh out in lay terms, localized electricity and CleanPowerSF for listeners. This interview goes over some very important immediate obstacles to CleanPowerSF, so please take time to listen to it if you can. It is important for as many active Greens as possible to understand what's going on with this program so that we can better fight for its survival in the next several months. You can listen to the show at http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/political-analysis/2011/12/6/politic… The interview begins just after the 29 minute mark. For the basics on CleanPowerSF see: http://ourcitysf.org/campaigns/CleanPowerSF.html peace Eric B

1 0

[Sustain] Wow! SFPUC Staff To Make Urban Composting Toilets Presentation Tomorrow
by Eric Brooks 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

Hi all, Exciting note on tomorrow's SFPUC hearing! Wastewater Enterprise staff responded to my request that they study composting toilets, and are doing a great presentation on them early in the SFPUC meeting tomorrow, which shows that in some applications their installation can meet or beat sewer system upgrade costs. The hearing is in SF City Hall, Room 400, 1:30pm. Attached is the presentation power point, and the URL for the hearing information is at: http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1646 cheers Eric B

1 0

[Sustain] FYI: SF Clean Energy Stewards, Wed Oct 26 - State Renewables Standards Enforcement
by Eric Brooks 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

Bart Broome (SFPUC) wrote: Energy and Renewable Power Stakeholders: The SFPUC invites you to the next Clean Energy Stewards meeting on Wednesday, October 26 at 5:00pm. At this Stewards meeting Power Enterprise staff will discuss the Enforcement Program for the state’s Renewable Energy Resources Act (SBX1-2) signed into law earlier this year. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will consider the Enforcement Program in their meetings on November 8 and December 13. We look forward to reviewing the Enforcement Program at the Clean Energy Stewards meeting. Details: What: Clean Energy Stewards When: Wednesday, October 26 – 5:00 to 6:30 pm Where: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission offices, 1155 Market Street, 6th Floor Please RSVP by replying to this email. Best regards, Bart Broome Government Affairs Manager 1145 Market Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Office: (415) 554-0706 | Fax: (415) 934-3918 | bbroome(a)sfwater.org Please consider the environment before printing this email. San Francisco Water, Power, and Sewer | Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

1 0

[Sustain] Shark Fin Ban Becomes Law!
by Eric Brooks 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

http://na.oceana.org/en/blog/2011/10/victory-west-coast-shark-fin-ban-compl… Oceana: The Beacon Victory! West Coast Shark Fin Ban Complete <http://na.oceana.org/en/blog/2011/10/victory-west-coast-shark-fin-ban-compl…> Posted Fri, Oct 7, 2011 by Emily Fisher oceanic whitetip shark At last, the good news you've been waiting for: California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill banning the trade of shark fins. California has joined the ranks of Washington State, Oregon and Hawaii, who have all passed similar bans. Oceana supported this legislation from the beginning, and we are thrilled that Governor Brown has passed it into law, completing a West Coast ban. Each year, tens of millions of sharks <http://na.oceana.org/en/our-work/protect-marine-wildlife/sharks/overview> are killed for their fins, mostly to make shark fin soup. In this wasteful and cruel practice, a shark’s fins are sliced off while at sea and the remainder of the animal is thrown back into the water to die. Without fins, sharks bleed to death, drown, or are eaten by other species. In recent decades some shark populations have declined by as much as 99%. Removing sharks from ocean ecosystems can destabilize the ocean food web and even lead to declines in populations of other species, including commercially-caught fish and shellfish species lower in the food web. While shark finning is illegal in the U.S., current federal laws banning the practice do not address the issue of the shark fin trade, so shark fins are imported to the U.S. from countries with few or even no shark protections in place. “Today is a landmark day for shark conservation around the globe” said Susan Murray, Oceana’s Senior Pacific Director. “The leadership shown by legislatures and governors of California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii sends a strong message that the entire US West Coast will no longer play a role in the global practice of shark finning that is pushing many shark species to the brink of extinction.” *A huge thanks to everyone who called your legislators and Governor Brown and helped secure this enormous victory for our oceans' top predators!*

1 0

[Sustain] Protest PG&E Fri Noon - Anniversary Of Deadly Gas Explosion - PG&E HQ, 77 Beale Street, SF CA (near Embarcadero BART)
by Eric Brooks 07 Sep '11

07 Sep '11

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=187510794652397 PG&E Protest Rally Protest PG&E At The One Year Anniversary Of Its Deadly Gas Explosion In San Bruno - Demand Localized, Community Owned, Clean Energy Time Friday, September 9 · 12:00pm - 3:00pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Location PG&E Headquarters 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ More Info No more San Brunos! On the first Anniversary of the criminal San Bruno Blast, rally to protest PG&E for its arrogance, incompetence and downright criminality! Please spread the word and help bring power back to the people. Sponsored by Terry Joan Baum for SF Mayor 2011 www.terryjoanbaum.com <http://www.terryjoanbaum.com> staff(a)terryjoanbaum.com 415-553-8847

1 0

[Sustain] The Green Bubble Manifesto (please share widely)
by Eric Brooks 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Hi all, Today, in a response within a blog debate about energy, I suddenly discovered that I had just crystallized into one page, the case for using a final 'Green Bubble' via capitalism to leverage a clean energy and sustainable future for the planet. (It forms an interesting, and even harmonizing, counterpoint to the socialism vs libertarianism debates that we have recently had on the Active list.) Here it is (also attached). Please spread it around if it resonates. Hopefully it will catch fire so that people start grasping this concept. The Green Bubble Manifesto While it would fundamentally solve a lot of problems to phase out capitalism (a task we should have begun at least a couple of decades ago), at this particular point in history, we have little choice but to use the deeply flawed mechanisms of capitalism to get a new green economy off the ground, because it will be the only way to do so quickly enough to deal with the looming climate crisis. At this stage, capitalism is hopelessly stuck in having to generate a series of larger and larger economic debt bubbles just to keep itself from collapsing. Because such bubbles have to be paid back with interest, this cycle will never stop and will never cease dangerously escalating in size (and impact on the physical world). However, because we have to completely revolutionize our entire energy and transportation infrastructure in the next two decades on this planet in order to come even close to keeping the atmosphere from spiraling into an utterly disastrous series of climate warming tipping points that will destroy our civilization, it is pretty obvious that we should use another, even larger capitalist bubble expansion, to leverage that badly needed rapid retooling of our energy economy into being. This is the obvious solution in the short term. We need national, state, and local governments to together pump an infusion of trillions of dollars into a global WW2 scale Green New Deal, which will rebuild our entire civil infrastructure to run on renewable energy and mass transit by somewhere between 2030 and 2040. This will create another, even larger, interest driven capitalist bubble. However it will be far more benign than our previous bubbles, and will actually be relatively stable, because after that renewable infrastructure is built (and its installation costs are paid off) it will flood our economy with essentially free energy from the sun and wind for upwards of a century; the selling of which energy can be used to pay off the interest payments on the funding of the bubble. (The savings from much more efficient, lower cost transportation and shipping will also help pay off that interest debt.) And once that universal, nearly free energy is flowing, its economically decentralizing influence will indeed help us phase out capitalism, a task that we absolutely must begin as soon as we can before capitalism destroys literally everything. Because capitalism depends on endless growth to fund endless ever expanding finance interest bubbles (as referred to above) it is literally eating this planet alive at an extremely rapid and exponentially expanding pace. If we don't immediately shift to a clean decentralized energy economy and then immediately gear down capitalism itself such that we quickly transition to a sustainable, rather than 'growth' economy within the next few decades, we and the planet are doomed. And I would think that the most educated capitalists are beginning to figure that out now. The first step toward this transition to sustainability would be phasing in what I would describe as 'nonprofit capitalism' in which income and property ownership are gradually lowered until no person can make more than a couple hundred thousand dollars a year, and each is also limited to a sane amount of personal physical ownership of cubic feet of living space and 'stuff'; with any excesses from sales and service prices going to either R&D or to national, state and local governments to further retool the economy into becoming one which will not destroy the Earth. This is our 21st Century manifesto, if we have the courage to take it up. Eric Brooks San Francisco, CA 6, September, 2011

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Gov't secrecy can be murderous
by Don Eichelberger 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

I worry this is just one of many disclosures to come.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Gov't secrecy can be murderous Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:47:15 -0700 From: Richard Knee <rak0408(a)earthlink.net> To: Knee Richard A. <rak0408(a)earthlink.net> From today's New York Times: Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril By NORIMITSU ONISHI <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/norimitsu_onis…> and MARTIN FACKLER <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/martin_fackler…> FUKUSHIMA, Japan — The day after a giant tsunami set off the continuing disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, thousands of residents at the nearby town of Namie gathered to evacuate. Given no guidance from Tokyo, town officials led the residents north, believing that winter winds would be blowing south and carrying away any radioactive emissions. For three nights, while hydrogen explosions at four of the reactors spewed radiation into the air, they stayed in a district called Tsushima where the children played outside and some parents used water from a mountain stream to prepare rice. The winds, in fact, had been blowing directly toward Tsushima — and town officials would learn two months later that a government computer system designed to predict the spread of radioactive releases had been showing just that. But the forecasts were left unpublicized by bureaucrats in Tokyo, operating in a culture that sought to avoid responsibility and, above all, criticism. Japan’s political leaders at first did not know about the system and later played down the data, apparently fearful of having to significantly enlarge the evacuation zone — and acknowledge the accident’s severity. “From the 12th to the 15th we were in a location with one of the highest levels of radiation,” said Tamotsu Baba, the mayor of Namie, which is about five miles from the nuclear plant. He and thousands from Namie now live in temporary housing in another town, Nihonmatsu. “We are extremely worried about internal exposure to radiation.” The withholding of information, he said, was akin to “murder." [. . .] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/asia/09japan.html?_r=1&ref=world

1 0

[Sustain] Report Back: SFPUC Desalination Action Item
by Eric Brooks 01 Jul '11

01 Jul '11

Hi all, At the June 14th SFPUC hearing, Commissioners Francesca Vietor and Art Torres, were very skeptical about the wisdom of the desal appropriation, citing both environmental and economic reasons, however they ended up compromising a bit. (Commissioner Vince Courtney who moved to postponed the item l in May, was not present.) So the SFPUC commissioners (because they were essentially split on the issue) decided to postpone the desalination item for one full month (until Tuesday, July 12) with direction to staff which creates both positives and negatives for us. (See further below for details.) The upshot is that, while we gained some ground, we have not yet achieved even what we asked for in the joint letter (see text attached). There is a possible opportunity to even get three of the five commissioners to reject the appropriation altogether; and at the very least we may be able to get them to stage the expenditures and studies on all of this so that they answer basic questions like local water need and potential for alternatives before money is spent specifically on scoping for desal itself. Some key points: - SFPUC staff pretty aggressively defended the appropriation, even in light of the letter and some solid commentary via a separate email from me, and in public comment from myself and Peter Drekmeier really taking to task the fundamental validity of desal, especially using ocean, bay and estuary waters. Staff was in fact so insistent that I am guessing some contractors which stand to make a good chunk of money on this deal are probably working this issue behind the scenes. - Staff's most successful argument to refute our position, was their claim that, in order to answer the questions we posed in the letter, they needed to pass the $200,000 appropriation so that the studies can be commissioned to specifically answer such questions. (We have at least two good counter arguments which are: 1) Needs assessments and alternatives assessments can be conducted without doing a larger appropriation to study desalination itself, and that those needs and alternatives assessments should clearly be conducted first, before jumping into desal planning. 2) There has already been a San Francisco Bay desalination pilot. Existing information from that pilot and other desal projects around the world, along with existing data on San Francisco Bay habitat, wildlife populations, and endangered species, should first be analyzed to answer only the specific question of whether it is fundamentally environmentally sensible to engage in desalination of the San Francisco Bay waters in the first place. A more preliminary initial assessment like this does not require a study of an entire proposal for desalination. It will save money and staff resources to do these preliminary assessments of need, alternatives, and environmental advisability first, before proceeding with a full study for desal implementation.) - Commissioners Art Torres specifically raised the issue that a pilot has already been done, and that we should be able to get enough information from that pilot. Both he and Commissioner Francesca Vietor strongly questioned the advisability of spending so much money on this study during such drastic budget times. Both also questioned, as we have, whether desalination might in fact be an environmental non-starter in the first place. In addition Commissioner Torres raised the issue that ratepayers will be paying for this, and that therefore a robust engagement with the public should be engaged before the appropriation is approved. He noted that the MOA had no funding in it for public outreach, and staff admitted that this was the case. (The MOA mentions public outreach, but not with enough specificity, nor with dedicated funding.) Unfortunately this line of reasoning, while solid, also sent the hearing in the direction of a possible weak compromise next month that might allow the appropriation to go forward unless we really gear up and push hard for an alternative strategy in the next three weeks. (See my last dashed bullet note for a description of this potential compromise problem.) - As noted below in the May hearing, Commissioner Vince Courtney (head of the local Laborers trade union) supported the position that enviros should get more input before the appropriation is approved. If we do some dedicated lobbying with him, and Commissioners Torres and Vietor, giving them strong environmental and economic/green-jobs arguments against desal, we may very well be able to get them to simply vote down the proposal (because the full commission. And by green jobs arguments I mean describing for them that, if we focus our water sustainability efforts on an -extensive- citywide retrofitting of homes, businesses, open space, pavements, capture-storage, and a strongly ramped up efficiency of our entire local water delivery system, hundreds of ongoing jobs can be created; far, far more than would be created by building and running an environmentally harmful desal plant.) - Commissioners Anne Moller Caen, and Anson Moran (who is the water expert on the Commission) both pretty strongly supported staff's position that the full money must be appropriated so sufficient study can be done. It is conceivable that if we lay out a good argument and plan for Commissioner Moran for a more phased approach as our letter suggests and as I note above, we may be able to get him on board, but my gut tells me it would be tough to get his buy-in on it. - As noted above, the hearing ended with Torres and Vietor supporting our position - Caen and Moran opposing - (with Courtney not present). To get past the impasse, they reached a compromise between eachother, and staff, that they would postpone their vote on the MOA to July 12, with the stipulation that staff would amend the MOA to clearly lay out a strong public, and ratepayer, outreach plan so that there can be a robust public process engaged as studies move forward. Early in the hearing Commissioner Torres seemed pretty adamant that some strong public outreach and a public hearing be engaged -before- the $200,000 appropriation was engaged, however his (and Vietor's) final stand on this by the end was a little unclear and we should firm it up. Final Notes: Essentially, July 12 will probably -be- our public hearing, so if we want to have a strong impact we need to send reps from all of our groups to that hearing (along with detailed referenced written public comment beforehand) so that we show them a really solid grassroots presence at that hearing. It will help a lot if we can also drum up some opposition from ratepayer groups. I'll also talk to Joshua Arce of Brightline Defense Project to also weigh in on the basis that extensive in-city community wide retrofit will be far better for creating a boom in local green jobs for water sustainability. We have a really good shot at winning this if we put up a strong effort. Eric B

1 0