- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] Public Citizen Petition vs Corporate Free Speech
by Eric Brooks 22 Jan '10

22 Jan '10

As we told you in an email this morning, the Supreme Court today allowed corporations to use their immense wealth to take over our elections. *The court has put our democracy up for sale.* Public Citizen is launching a historic campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to restore people to the center of the political process. Join our grassroots mobilization to take back our democracy. The more people who join, the more power we have to fight a corporate takeover. *Forward this email to everyone you know who recognizes that letting unlimited corporate cash into our elections will be a catastrophe.* Public Citizen President Robert Weissman <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2B8g2q9jpbbCv3T25B%…>Click here to watch a short video about the ruling and Public Citizen's response to it. And sign our petition calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent corporate money from overwhelming our democracy. <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=iUoKM2%2F8DQhNQ22O%2…> The shocking decision in /Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission/ struck down 60 years of legal precedent prohibiting corporations from making campaign expenditures to attack or support political candidates. The court ruled that the First Amendment - meant to protect the speech of actual human beings - gives for-profit corporations the right to influence elections. *People or corporations?* Corporations are not human beings. Corporations should not be able to use their vast financial power to drown out the voices of real people. *Forward this email to friends, family, neighbors and coworkers to let them know about our campaign to fight unfettered corporate power.* Then watch the video and sign the petition. <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Lv16WfMd9arlhbYiszSh…> Please help me spread the word and build a massive movement to save our democracy. *Forward this email. Watch the video. Sign the petition.* Thank you. Robert Weissman, President To get regular e-alerts about opportunities for activism and other ways to help with Public Citizen's work, sign up <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hoBStHezXmNu6pF9YfOM…> for the Public Citizen Action Network. Contribute <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2OxxpsKKZl2EolsrC3md…> | © 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2FanniHrNg5anE2pUpB…>

1 0

[Sustain] Alert: Oppose Magwood Appointment To Nuke Commission
by Eric Brooks 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=15… nirsnet(a)nirs.org wrote: Dear Friends, Late last July, 100 environmental and clean energy organizations responded to media reports and wrote to President Obama urging him not to appoint William Magwood to become one of five Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners. You can read our letter here. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=hfIqiFz6mAXAxXYpu6tbs…> Unfortunately, Obama ignored this plea and appointed Magwood anyway. *One of your Senators sits on the Senate Environment Committee, which can approve or disapprove NRC nominees. Please write your Senator now and ask him/her to oppose the Magwood nomination <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XClf07wqZP6Y2sMlZGHsK…>.* The Senate has not yet confirmed Magwood, and his appointment has raised at least a few eyebrows. It's not hard to see why. Magwood has been an unabashed promoter of nuclear power for decades. According to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8m9qwRsOvTAiuVZMp9Jge…>, "As head of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Power, he helped lead the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Nuclear Power 2010, and the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. He also served as the first chairman of the Generation IV International Forum and as chair of the Steering Committee on Nuclear Energy Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation. More recently, he founded Advanced Energy Strategies which provides "expert advice and analysis of U.S. and international energy policy activities; nuclear industry developments and prospects; and supporting business development efforts." Mr. Magwood has also been an investor in and President of Secure Energy North America Corporation, a company that is 'working with industry and investors to develop novel approaches to finance new nuclear power stations in the United States.''" For years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been plagued with Commissioners more interested in boosting the nuclear power industry than in meaningful regulatory oversight, even though the NRC is explicitly prohibited from nuclear promotion. There is a real chance to stop this unwarranted nomination. Tell your Senator today that the NRC needs strong, public-minded regulators, not more nuclear cheerleaders. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=gd%2FKoaWYo%2BHiBUU12…> And ask your friends and colleagues to take action too. Thanks for all you do, Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet(a)nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org> www.nirs.org <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ntmT5s49M6ablIQfaV0pa…>

1 0

[Sustain] My Written Comments On Hunters Point II DEIR
by Eric Brooks 14 Jan '10

14 Jan '10

Hi all, Here's what I both emailed and hand delivered to Planning and Redevelopment yesterday on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the toxic, gentrifying, Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development (which is set to be built by environmentally criminal Lennar Corporation). 1/12/2010 Public Comments On: - CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT File No. 2007.0946E - SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY File No. ER06.05.07 - State Clearinghouse No. 2007082168 Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project (formerly the "Bayview Waterfront Project") Draft Environmental Impact Report TO: Bill Wycko Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 and Stanley Muraoka Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Redevelopment Agency One South Van Ness Avenue, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 FROM: Eric Brooks Sustainability Chair, San Francisco Green Party 288 Onondaga Ave # 4 San Francisco, CA 94112 brookse(a)igc.org 415-756-8844 Environmental Review Officers, I am submitting these comments to point out, and insist upon correction of, serious inadequacies, in the the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project, and in the project plans to which the DEIR refers. I will focus my comments in two categories - 1) SERIOUS INADEQUACIES IN ADDRESSING, AND FAILURES TO ACCOUNT FOR, PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE 2) FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR AND AVOID HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OF TOXIC MATERIALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS AND IONIZING RADIATION; AND, FAILURE TO MEET THE LEGAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ENVIRONMENT CODE CHAPTER 1: - PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE POLICY STATEMENT - SECTIONS 100-104 (see http://library.municode.com/HTML/14134/level1/C1.html ) Comments: 1) SERIOUS INADEQUACIES IN ADDRESSING, AND FAILURES TO ACCOUNT FOR, PROJECTED SEA LEVEL RISE As is now commonly understood and established by widespread and overwhelming scientific consensus, the Earth's oceans and the San Francisco Bay are now undergoing sea level rise due to planetary climate warming. Until very recently, science policy groups, including and especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been projecting that the worst case scenario for global sea level rise would be no higher than 1.5 meters by the year 2100. However new data and reports released in November 2009 now indicate that the worst case scenario for global sea level rise is now projected to be at least 2 meters by the year 2100. More importantly, NASA's James Hansen, widely recognized as the preeminent climate change expert on Earth, argued credibly as early as 2007 that worst case scenario sea level rise will instead be 5 meters by the year 2100. In light of the fact that the IPCC's predictions of sea level rise from just two years ago have been found to be inadequate by an entire one half meter, and that James Hansen had previously argued in 2007 that the IPCC's projections were indeed inadequate, Hansen's projection of a worst case scenario of 5 meters sea level rise by the year 2100, must now be assumed as the guide for all plans for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. The following data and reports prove this case: - On Nov 22, 2009 NASA released new satellite gravimetric data from a 7 year study of Antarctica showing that the massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which scientists previously thought was gaining in volume, is suddenly (as of 2006) undergoing rapid and widespread melting. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-… The NASA study report itself can be ordered from Nature Geoscience at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html This research also shows massive new and more rapid melting in West Antarctica and Greenland. - As of November 24, 2009, in a report entitled 'The Copenhagen Diagnosis', even historically overly equivocal IPCC scientists revised their sea level rise projections to a possible 2 meters (6.5 feet) by the year 2100. See the Reuters news release on the report at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AN4L620091124 and the actual report itself at http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/default.html The portion of this report which describes new sea level rise projections begins on page 37 of the report. - In a March 2007 report, NASA's James Hansen, who first alerted the general public and policy makers to the global climate crisis, discusses the probability of a 5 meter (16.25 feet) sea level rise. See Hansen's report at: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html Note that Hansen's report is speculative by nature, simply because ice sheet melting and other data will not exist to prove the case that he argues, until that level of melting is already happening. However, given that the NASA gravimetric data noted above shows that Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are currently undergoing rapidly accelerating melting at previously unforeseen rates (and at rates which continue to accelerate even further) there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt Hansen's predictions; especially in light of the fact that Hansen's past predictions have consistently proved to be correct. CONCLUSIONS - SEA RISE: Hence, since James Hansen's prediction of a worst case 5 meter sea level rise by the year 2100 is highly credible, it is, at the very least, that standard of a predicted 5 meter rise which must be used as the guideline for all plans for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. More importantly, good engineering practice (especially when dealing with a factor with such high unpredictability and potentially severe and costly outcomes as climate induced sea level rise) would call for at least an additional 100% margin of safety over worst case projections to be adopted for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. This means that the standard for assumed sea level rise in the project should be at least 10 meters (32.5 feet) of sea level rise by the year 2100. Even if planners were to use the likely far too equivocal 2 meter worst case sea rise projection in The Copenhagen Diagnosis, an additional 100% margin of safety would still demand a minimum 4 meter rise assumption. Since the project plans and DEIR for the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project could not have envisioned the November 2009 reports noted above, and since planners and drafters were apparently unaware of Hansen's earlier and even more serious 5 meter rise projection, the project plans and DEIR are therefore utterly inadequate in addressing and including sufficiently high sea level rise projections. Specific Inadequacies Numerous And Widespread - In Addition Most DEIR Sections Have No Sea Rise Analysis At All, And Must Now Include Such Analysis The sections of the DEIR which deal most comprehensively with sea level rise; Volume 2 Section II. Project Description; and Volume 2 Section III.M. Hydrology and Water Quality; have numerous entries on sea level rise. In nearly every instance, the core predictions and plans referenced in the DEIR are dramatically overwhelmed by even the new -minimum- worst case scenario described above of 2 meters (78 inches) sea level rise. Most of the DEIR and project plan sections mentioning sea level rise assume a maximum of 36 inches sea level rise. Most notably, even where a potential 55 inch rise is mentioned as theoretically possible, that potential is downplayed with the following statement which, in light of the new information shown above, can now be seen to be completely and dangerously incorrect; "Even among projections considered plausible, albeit high, by the CALFED Independent Science Board, a SLR of 36-inches would not occur until about 2075 to 2080 and by about 2100 the SLR could reach 55 inches. However, sea level observations since the publication date of the ice cap melt studies, although not conclusive to establish a new trend in SLR, do not show the accelerated SLR trajectory predicted by some of the reports." Clearly, new observations do -indeed- show such accelerated sea level rise. Other sections of the DEIR which specifically mention sea level rise and which need to be carefully and extensively revised to account for both the new data and Hansen's report are: Volume 2 Sections III.K and III.L and Volume 3 Sections III.N and III.S, Section IV. and Section VI. Furthermore, almost every -other- section of the DEIR and the project plan referenced, is impacted by sea level rise; and in light of the much higher 2 to 5 meter sea level rise projections now shown to be warranted, nearly the entire DEIR and the project plan that it references must be carefully reexamined and revised to account for sea level rise impacts. To get a sense of why such an overarching reexamination of nearly the entire DEIR is necessary, see the following online interactive sea level rise projection maps: The Project Area At 2 Meters Sea Level Rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=37.7293,-122.3995&z=3&m=2 The Project Area At 5 Meters Sea Level Rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=37.7293,-122.3995&z=3&m=5 Even at the minimum 2 meter rise worst case assumption, the sea inundations into the project area clearly and profoundly impact the entire project in fundamental ways that are not adequately addressed in the DEIR and the referenced project plan. And the 5 meter projection map is undeniably astounding in its implications. Therefore the following sections; III.A. Intro to Analysis; III.B. Land Use; III.C. Pop., Housing, & Employment; III. D. Transportation; III. E. Aesthetics; III.H. Air Quality; III.J. Cultural and Paleontological Resources; III.O. Public Services; III.P. Recreation; III.Q. Utilities; III.R. Energy; and V. Other CEQA Considerations; all of which shockingly contain no significant references to sea level rise whatsoever, must now all be carefully reviewed and revised to account comprehensively for the far reaching impacts of the sea level rise projections indicated above. Furthermore, all of the DEIR Appendices must likewise be assessed as to their accuracy in regard to sea level rise. Most notably, Appendices L, S, and V-2 each reference sea level rise, largely mirror the same serious shortcomings and errors shown in the DEIR, and must therefore be strongly questioned. And as in the case of the overall DEIR itself, all of the other Appendices are also affected and should be reexamined in relation to the new data and reports as to their adequacy. Particularly important in this respect is Appendix N-2 which discusses Yosemite Slough with almost no mention of sea level at all; this when sea level rise will clearly have profound impacts on plans for the Slough. Sea Level Rise Interactions With Liquefaction & Hazardous Materials The most important inadequacies of the DEIR and project plan lie in their failure to account adequately for the potential of sea level rise to severely exacerbate both liquefaction and the leaching and harmful interactions of hazardous materials in the project area. Liquefaction In the report entitled 'Vulnerability assessment to liquefaction hazard induced by rising sea-levels due to global warming' (see http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=155784183 - or purchase the full article with graphics at http://eproceedings.worldscinet.com/9789812701602/preserved-docs/9789812701… ) the report authors establish clearly that liquefaction dangers increase as sea levels rise, and increase rapidly after sea level rise exceeds 1 meter. Shockingly, neither the DEIR section III.L. Geotechnical; nor section III.M. Hydrology and Water Quality; mention in any substantial way the dangers of potential interactions between sea level rise and liquefaction. It is absolutely imperative that the DEIR and the project plan, outline a detailed analysis of these potentially extremely hazardous interactions, and outline plans for how they would be prevented; all with the full range of 2 to 5 meters sea level rise assumed. Hazardous Materials By far the most troubling aspect of the DEIR and project plan's neglect of sea level rise assessments is in their failure to sufficiently address potential sea level rise interaction with hazardous materials in and on the project site. In 'Implications of Sea Level Rise for Hazardous Waste Sites in Coastal Floodplains' (see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter9.pdf ) the authors establish clearly the extensive dangerous interactions that can occur as sea level rise exacerbates flooding and triggers other negative impacts in hazardous waste sites, such as those in the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project. Yet astoundingly, neither the DEIR section III.K. Hazards and Hazardous Materials; III.L. Geotechnical; nor section III.M. Hydrology and Water Quality; assess in any comprehensive or substantial way the very serious dangers of potential interactions between sea level rise and the numerous hazardous materials and residues in the project plan area. It is crucial that comprehensive detailed assessments of such potential interactions be included in the DEIR and project plan; assessments which assume the full spectrum of 2 to 5 meters sea level rise projected above. However, regardless of the findings of such new assessments, the dramatic sea level rise scenarios projected above could so overwhelm the project area that unforeseen and unavoidable extremely dangerous leaching, flushing, mixing, out-gassing and dispersion of a veritable toxic soup of hazardous materials could take place in the project area. It is therefore imperative that all hazardous materials be completely removed from the entire project area before any development is permitted to proceed. Under a scenario of sea level rise between 2 and 5 meters, no capping or other on-site containment of any hazardous wastes can be adequate to assure the prevention of unacceptably dangerous leaching, flushing, mixing, out-gassing and dispersion of hazardous materials; all which in turn would lead to the inevitable poisoning of the environment, animals, and people, living in, working in, and visiting the area. These remarks on sea level rise disrupted hazardous materials now segue well into the second and final category of my comments. 2) FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR AND AVOID HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OF TOXIC MATERIALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS AND IONIZING RADIATION; AND, FAILURE TO MEET THE LEGAL PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ENVIRONMENT CODE CHAPTER 1: - PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE POLICY STATEMENT - SECTIONS 100-104 (see http://library.municode.com/HTML/14134/level1/C1.html ) Chrysotile Asbestos Two recent European Union (EU) directives can be viewed at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXn… and at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXn… In those directives, the EU establishes that "No threshold level of exposure has yet been identified below which chrysotile asbestos does not pose carcinogenic risks;". In those directives, the EU also bans all applications and uses of chrysotile asbestos as of the year 2005. Chrysotile or 'white' asbestos is the same type existing naturally in serpentine rock at the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area and in other development areas in the Bayview Hunters Point. Previous grading and other development activities in those other development areas has resulted in chrysotile dust contamination on the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area. Because it has been established that there is no safe level of exposure to chrysotile asbestos, all asbestos dust which has arisen from other construction sites must be completely removed from the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area before any any development can begin in the area. Further, because it has been established that there is no safe level of exposure to chrysotile asbestos, no grading whatsoever of any asbestos laden serpentine rock can be allowed in the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area. Such grading presents unnecessary and unacceptable risks to human health. All plans of the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project which permit the grading of asbestos laden serpentine rock must be nullified, and alternative plans which will not disturb chrysotile asbestos must be adopted. Ionizing Radiation In June 2005 the National Academies of Science reported that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation (see http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340 ) Therefore no development can be allowed to proceed in the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area until all radiological waste materials are completely removed from the area. Proceeding with any development while such wastes remain anywhere in the project area, presents unnecessary and unacceptable risks to human health. The Precautionary Principle And All Hazardous Materials Furthermore, because San Francisco's own legally established Precautionary Principle also requires that no person be unnecessarily exposed to chrysotile asbestos, ionizing radiation, or any other hazardous materials, it is doubly mandated that all asbestos laden serpentine rock must be left completely undisturbed, and all radiological and other hazardous materials must be completely removed from the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan Project area before any development can proceed. -end of comments- Eric Brooks Sustainability Chair, San Francisco Green Party 288 Onondaga Ave # 4 San Francisco, CA 94112 brookse(a)igc.org 415-756-8844

1 0

[Sustain] SF City Atty Files To Block PG&E Attacks On CCA
by Eric Brooks 12 Jan '10

12 Jan '10

Hi all, Herrera has included potential PG&E marketing for the statewide ballot measure in the complaint. See links below. http://www.sfcityattorney.org/ Herrera seeks rule change to block PG&E efforts to kill consumer choice <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=277> City Attorney Dennis Herrera has petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission for tougher regulations to prohibit electric utilities from engaging in marketing campaigns and other abuses of their monopoly position to undermine Community Choice Aggregation, a program intended to enable local governments to develop cleaner, renewable energy sources and ultimately stabilize consumers' electricity costs. The move comes in reaction to recent efforts by PG&E to kill consumer choice, contrary to promises the company repeatedly voiced to state regulators. "We cannot let Californians be denied the benefits of cleaner, cost-effective energy alternatives -- consumer choice is simply too important to ratepayers and the environment," Herrera said. "The California Public Utilities Commission exists to police giant utilities, to assure that their monopoly advantages aren't abused to exploit consumers or frustrate the policy objectives of our state lawmakers. Yet that is exactly what has happened since PG&E locked CCA into its crosshairs. It is critical for state regulators to move quickly and decisively to tighten regulations, and restore teeth to the law as the legislature intended. I am enormously grateful to Sup. Ross Mirkarimi for his longstanding leadership on CCA as LAFCo chair, and to SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington and his staff for their expertise and hard work to fulfill the promise of consumer choice." * Read the news release "Herrera seeks rule change to block PG&E efforts to kill consumer choice <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=277>; Utility's deceptive campaign, broken promises on Community Choice Aggregation demand expedited action by regulators, City argues" (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of the City Attorney's CPUC petition to halt anti-CCA marketing drives <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=503> (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of City Attorney's CPUC Petition Appendices A-C <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=502> (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of City Attorney's CPUC Petition Appendices D-G <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=500> (Jan. 11, 2010) * Download the PDF of City Attorney's CPUC Petition Appendices H-L <http://www.sfcityattorney.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=501> (Jan. 11, 2010)

1 0

[Sustain] richard stone wants to share approved contacts on Boxbe
by richard stone 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

GPSF, I use Boxbe to manage my inbox. I think Boxbe can help you, too! Here's the link: https://www.boxbe.com/register?tc=1048215558_1380861935 -richard Please do not reply directly to this email. This message was sent at the request of zentropical(a)gmail.com. Boxbe will not use your email address for any other purpose. Click the link below if you would prefer not to receive any further invitations from Boxbe members: https://www.boxbe.com/unsubscribe?email=sustainability@sfgreens.org&tc=1048… Boxbe integrates with Yahoo!, Gmail, Google Apps, and AOL. Get Boxbe today! Boxbe, Inc. | 2390 Chestnut Street #201 | San Francisco, CA 94123

1 0

[Sustain] Urgent! Call City Hall For Tenant Rights!
by Eric Brooks 14 Dec '09

14 Dec '09

Hi all, Call Supervisor Bevan Dufty today to insist that he support full tenant protections in San Francisco! San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos has sponsored an ordinance to close a loophole in City law and require that all landlords in San Francisco must participate in -Just Cause- for evictions. Just Cause means that if a landlord is going to evict a tenant, the landlord must have a good reason before being allowed to do so (such as damage to an apartment or non-payment of rent). Currently, City law only protects tenants in buildings built before 1979. In all other buildings, a landlord can evict a tenant at any time for no reason. The Avalos measure would amend the law to protect -all- tenants, ensuring fairness and housing security for everyone. BUT, Supervisor Bevan Dufty (who announced recently that he is a candidate for Mayor of San Francisco) says he is opposed to the Avalos ordinance and intends to vote 'no' in tomorrow's 2pm Board of Supervisors meeting! WHAT YOU CAN DO: CALL DUFTY NOW! Urgent calls are needed to Supervisor Dufty's office right now to demand that he switch his position and vote 'YES' on the ordinance. Please take a quick moment to phone Bevan Dufty's office at 415-554-6968 with the following message: -Supervisor Dufty, if you want to run for Mayor, you need to prove that you will protect tenants' rights. Vote 'YES' on the Avalos eviction protection ordinance AS IT IS with NO further amendments!- IMPORTANT NOTE: If you are calling at night or get a recording, leave your message as voice mail. Calls must be in by 1:45pm tomorrow (Tuesday, December 15th). Thanks, as always, for your action and support! Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City http://our-city.org

1 0

[Sustain] Help Save Rainbow Snake From Climate Change - This Wednesday
by Eric Brooks 12 Dec '09

12 Dec '09

Hi all, The most beautiful snake in California, the rainbow colored San Francisco Garter Snake, is in jeopardy due to climate change and needs our help. (To see and learn about the snake go to http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/CAsnakeSFGarter.html ) The snake is in trouble because a poorly designed coastal golf course was built right on top of its habitat in the 1920s and the snake has been declining ever since. Though the habitat, called Sharp Park, is in Pacifica California, the land is owned by the City of San Francisco. Recent efforts by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi are now giving us the chance to save this beautiful animal. Climate change could mean the end of the snake unless the golf course is removed and the habitat fully restored. Part of the habitat is a protected natural area called Mori Point (managed by the National Park Service) where the snake is starting to make a comeback. But rising sea levels triggered by the climate crisis will soon create flooding in Mori Point, and if the golf course is not removed, the rainbow snake will have no good place of retreat from the rising salt water. This Wednesday, December 16, at 1pm, in San Francisco City Hall, Room 263, a hearing will be held on proposed alternatives for Sharp Park. But unfortunately, under pressure from golf enthusiasts, the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Dept. is planning for the golf course to remain, and is making false claims that the course is good for the snake! WHAT YOU CAN DO Come to the hearing and speak up to insist that the entire golf course be removed from Sharp Park and the habitat be restored. Join other San Francisco residents, and members of the Center for Biological Diversity, Restore Sharp Park, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Our City and many others at the hearing, to save the rainbow snake. HEARING DETAILS - Government Audit & Oversight Committee, Hearing On Sharp Park Restoration - San Francisco City Hall, Room 263, Wednesday, December 16, 1pm - Directions: From Civic Center BART/Muni station, cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall (on Polk between Grove and McAllister) FOR MORE INFORMATION go to: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/restoring_sharp_park_californi… Thanks for your action and support! Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City 415-756-8844

2 1

[Sustain] Copenhagen Reports :)
by Eric Brooks 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Hi all, Both deeply disappointing, but also some powerful uplifting things, are happening in Copenhagen. For video and text reports see: http://oneclimate.net/ and http://www.linktv.org/climatechange/live

1 0

[Sustain] Outrageous PG&E Attack Mailer/Site On Clean Power SF!
by Eric Brooks 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Hi all, Just yesterday, I discovered a new and big glossy 'Business Beware' mailer from PG&E viciously attacking San Francisco's new clean energy program, Clean Power SF (Community Choice Aggregation), which just went out for contractor bids last month. The attack is absolutely outrageous because, by California state law, PG&E is -required- to "cooperate" with any community attempting to establish a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program. Further below is a web address where you can see the arguments that PG&E is making in its attack piece. It is important for all to understand that the key attack which the piece uses - a 2007 Controller's office statement that San Francisco electricity bills would go up by 24% under CCA - was so specious that even the fiscal conservatives on the SF Board of Supervisors ignored it and voted unanimously with the other Supervisors to establish Clean Power SF. The reason that the controllers 24% statement was rightly seen as ridiculous is that it totally and purposely ignored the fact that the higher up front costs of the renewables (and a service charge for dropping PG&E as a provider) will be spread out over the entire 15 to 20 year life of the project so that the high up front costs of -starting- the program will be totally eliminated by later -savings- from the renewables and efficiency programs which make up the project! If you look through the entire Controller's report (attached PDF), you'll see that the Controller even openly admits this fact in the report itself, and further, that the document does not make any definitive claim whatsoever that rates would go up. In fact, Clean Power SF is purposely and carefully designed to ensure that rates will stay the same or even go -down- (not up), and the ordinance establishing it expressly -requires- that the program must be structured to meet or beat PG&E rates. You can see the PG&E attack material at: http://www.commonsensesf.com/ The war with PG&E over clean energy is now fully on folks. It is -crucial- that you join in to help keep Clean Power SF strong and on track. Please watch closely for further alerts on Clean Power SF. (Note: If you are on -both- the 'Campaign' and 'Rapid' clean energy lists and are receiving two copies of this email, please email me directly at brookse32(a)aim.com and I'll make sure that you are only kept on one list so you don't receive duplicates.) Clean Power SF will switch us to 51% clean electricity within the next decade; a number that will put us in line with the reductions that scientists are saying nations should be adopting at the Copenhagen climate talks (but are clearly not going to). It's up to us to lead the world now. peace Eric

1 0

[Sustain] BAEHP EJ Air Pollution Protocol With Attachment
by Eric Brooks 19 Nov '09

19 Nov '09

Hi all, See the alert below for more information about the Bay Area Environmental Health Collaborative and its proposed new pollution protocol; which we discussed at tonight's GM meeting. I've also attached the protocol as a pdf in case you'd rather read it as a file, instead of following the links in the email. peace Eric /* /Please forward widely (apologies for cross postings).../ ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTION ALERT!* Join the Bay Area Environmental Health Collaborative in demanding that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District acknowledge and address cumulative and inequitable impacts of toxic air pollution on low-income communities of color! BAEHC is demanding that the District adopt our proposed <http://www.baehc.org/downloadables/baehc_PollutionReductionProtocol_March20…>Pollution Reduction Protocol <http://www.baehc.org/downloadables/BAEHC_PollutionReductionProtocol_March20…>, which calls for an end to new pollution and the implementation of pollution reduction plans in overburdened communities. Recently, the District proposed regulatory changes that were a step in the right direction and would have created stricter air pollution thresholds in highly impacted communities. / However, after pressure from industry forces who demanded to conduct "business as usual," the District has now withdrawn their proposal for more health-protective standards in communities most impacted by pollution./ _* We need your support. Here's what you can do to help :*_ __* *(1) *Add your organization's name* to <http://baehc.org/AlliesSupport.html>our <http://baehc.org/AlliesSupport.html> <http://baehc.org/AlliesSupport.html>sign-on letter <http://www.baehc.org/AlliesSupport.html>. (2) *Mobilize with us* for the upcoming Air District Board meetings on *Nov. 18th and Dec. 2nd*. Get to the BAAQMD building at 9:30 to check in and tell them you're there for the Board meeting at <http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=1765079976699026846&q=939+ellis+st,+s…>939 Ellis St. in San Francisco <http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=1765079976699026846&q=939+ellis+st,+s…>. Transportation is available from the East Bay and Southeast San Francisco (contact BAEHC for details). (3) *Call the Air District *Board Member <http://www.sparetheair.org/sitecore/content/Home/The-Air-District/Board-of-…> <http://www.sparetheair.org/sitecore/content/Home/The-Air-District/Board-of-…>who /should /be representing you. Tell them to protect community health and adopt BAEHC's Pollution Reduction Protocol. BAAQMD should create regulations and guidelines that provide additional protection for communities most impacted by pollution. */It's time to speak up loud and clear...// /No more business as usual! Stop the pollution in our communities! * * * Bay Area Environmental Health Collaborative (415) 994-2496 www.baehc.org <http://www.baehc.org> /

1 0