- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [Sustain] [Transpo] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm
by Eric Brooks 24 Jun '08

24 Jun '08

No problem. We'll do transportation first. susan vaughan wrote: > I need to leave at 8:30 p.m. > > Sue > > --- On Tue, 6/24/08, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: > From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > Subject: [Transpo] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm > To: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org>, "Transportation WG" <transpo(a)sfgreens.org>, "Green Active list" <active(a)sfgreens.org> > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7:27 AM > > Hi all, > > VERY important stuff is happening on transportation, utilities and > energy in San Francisco, and we really need to meet. > > This Thursday June 26, 6:30pm, SFGP Office > > Proposed Agenda > > 1) Imminent Muni Fare Hikes > 2) Mayor's Ballot Measure Removing Board of Supes Oversight Of Transit > 3) Nov Ballot Measure For 100% Green Public Power! > 4) PREPARING FOR AUGUST APPOINTMENTS TO THE SFPUC > 5) Peak Oil Report? (Jeanne) > 6) Water Report? (Mato Ska) > 7) Quick Update On Community Choice & Power Plants > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

Re: [Sustain] The Bay Guardian is in outer space on the peaker issue!
by Richard Knee 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

Re writing a letter: If you do it, there is a 50-50 chance it will appear. There is also a 50-50 chance it will be censored. If you do not do it, there is a 100 percent chance that it will not appear. Bear in mind also that Bruce Brugmann and/or Tim Redmond have represented the Bay Guardian at the coalition's meetings. In any such organization, disagreements are bound to arise, and it's important to remember that their hearts are in the right place. Best, Rick asumchai(a)sfbayview.com wrote: >> I forwarded Bruce the letter from Cal-Iso Eric circulated documented the >> > regulatory agency decision the Peakers are not needed. Clearly it is > absurd for the Guardian to promote the paranoid psychotic opinion that > this is a plot masterminded by PG&E to steal public power from the city. > I would write a letter but I suspect it would be censored. Maybe the SF > Bayview should pick it up as an issue and demand that the Guardian > reanalyze it's stance in exchange for a coalition commitment to the > public power initiative Ross is formulating. > Ahimsa > > > > > Perhaps one of you should write a letter to the editor or an op-ed > >> article. I'd offer to do it, except that I don't have the breadth or >> depth of knowledge on the issue that you folks do. >> >> Best, >> Rick >> >> >> Eric Brooks wrote: >> >>> It's pretty simple really. Bruce Brugmann has this totally absurd idea >>> that PG&E doesn't want the plant built because the City might use it >>> as an anchor for public power, (an assumption that is highly >>> questionable because of the expense of the peakers and the likelihood >>> that they will put the City into deep debt amidst rising natural gas >>> prices). But in Bruce's mind anything that PG&E doesn't like must be >>> good, and so he sees the peakers as a public power move to oust PG&E >>> (never mind that it is a totally ridiculous idea to get public power >>> by polluting the City and the atmosphere). The truth is that a small >>> 150 megawatt peaker plant wouldn't do a damned thing to anchor public >>> power in the City. He is unable to see the issue as the very complex >>> game that it actually is, and he is equally unable to get through his >>> head that no matter what PG&E wants, this planet cannot handle any >>> more fossil fuel plants. >>> The real reason that PG&E is opposing the peaker plant is that this >>> gives them an excuse to propose their spending upwards of $500 million >>> on a transmission upgrade to prevent the peakers, and this will give >>> them still deeper control of our energy grid because it will make it >>> cost $500 million more to take over the PG&E lines. >>> >>> This is why we need to keep pushing for a renewable energy solution >>> which will make both Mirant and the peakers unnecessary, -and- will >>> obviate any excuse for PG&E to build new transmission lines. >>> >>> asumchai(a)sfbayview.com wrote: >>> >>>>> Eric...can you make sense of Bruce and the Bay Guardian editorial >>>>> board? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's as if they are in a self serving "outer space" on the Peaker >>>> issue. >>>> Ahimsa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>>> See attached. >>>>> >>>>> This communication shows clearly that we were misled by SFPUC staff >>>>> and >>>>> that the new Peaker plant is not necessary. >>>>> >>>>> peace >>>>> >>>>> Eric Brooks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sustainability mailing list >>>>> Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org >>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate >>> themselves." – Che Guevara >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sustainability mailing list >>> Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability >>> >>> >> > > > > >

1 0

Re: [Sustain] The Bay Guardian is in outer space on the peaker issue!
by Eric Brooks 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

It's pretty simple really. Bruce Brugmann has this totally absurd idea that PG&E doesn't want the plant built because the City might use it as an anchor for public power, (an assumption that is highly questionable because of the expense of the peakers and the likelihood that they will put the City into deep debt amidst rising natural gas prices). But in Bruce's mind anything that PG&E doesn't like must be good, and so he sees the peakers as a public power move to oust PG&E (never mind that it is a totally ridiculous idea to get public power by polluting the City and the atmosphere). The truth is that a small 150 megawatt peaker plant wouldn't do a damned thing to anchor public power in the City. He is unable to see the issue as the very complex game that it actually is, and he is equally unable to get through his head that no matter what PG&E wants, this planet cannot handle any more fossil fuel plants. The real reason that PG&E is opposing the peaker plant is that this gives them an excuse to propose their spending upwards of $500 million on a transmission upgrade to prevent the peakers, and this will give them still deeper control of our energy grid because it will make it cost $500 million more to take over the PG&E lines. This is why we need to keep pushing for a renewable energy solution which will make both Mirant and the peakers unnecessary, -and- will obviate any excuse for PG&E to build new transmission lines. asumchai(a)sfbayview.com wrote: >> Eric...can you make sense of Bruce and the Bay Guardian editorial board? >> > It's as if they are in a self serving "outer space" on the Peaker issue. > Ahimsa > > > > Hi all, > >> See attached. >> >> This communication shows clearly that we were misled by SFPUC staff and >> that the new Peaker plant is not necessary. >> >> peace >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sustainability mailing list >> Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability >> >> > > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

2 1

[Sustain] Power Plant Update! & Monday Hearing Alert
by Eric Brooks 08 Jun '08

08 Jun '08

Hi all, We are, at last, very close to stopping the proposed combustion turbine 'peaker' plant project, afterwhich we will then be able to re-direct our full attention to attack the Mirant plant head on and shut it down as quickly as possible. We could be a mere 2 years away from ending fossil fuel power plant generation in San Francisco. As you know, because of our coalition's relentless pressure on the SFPUC, Cal ISO, Board of Supervisors, and Mayor, the Cal ISO has at last been forced into the position of making clear what it has been cryptically hinting at for nearly a decade - that -no- new fossil fuel power plants are needed to shut down the Mirant Potrero power plant. The Cal ISO has said that when the Transbay Cable comes online in 2010 it will remove the main gas boiler at Mirant (which generates 97% of Mirant's electricity) from must run status. The Cal ISO has said that the remaining three diesel turbines at Mirant can be gradually upgraded to run on natural gas if they are needed for emergency reliability, and we know from previous Cal ISO staff statements, that Cal ISO may even consider one, two or even all of those older turbines unnecessary for electricity reliability once the Transbay Cable is installed. So, what was a couple of weeks ago, a debate between putting in a new polluting natural gas plant which would have to run 18-30 years to pay itself off, or instead supposedly being stuck with a Mirant plant that would still have to continue running every day; has now become a completely different question. The new Cal ISO letter makes clear that the SFPUC staff's claims of the second scenario were a complete deception; and so now we have a brand new question: Can the City build enough solar, wind, and efficiency projects to make even upgraded Mirant diesel turbines completely unnecessary upon, or shortly following, the installation of the Transbay Cable in 2010? Clearly, that is a much better question to debate. I recommend that we -not- support the plan to upgrade the Mirant diesel turbines, but just so we can get a sense of the foundation of this new debate, here's the breakdown of why, even if we got stuck with such a Mirant upgrade plan, it would still be far better than the previous Combustion Turbine (CTs) proposal. 1) The cost of upgrading the Mirant diesels to run on natural gas would be $60 million. (The cost of installing the CTs would have been at least $273 million and probably would have gone much higher.) 2) According to a new study by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the upgraded Mirant diesels would actually pollute -less- than the CTs! 3) To pay off its massive cost, the CT project would have to run for 18-30 years. Because of recently spiking natural gas prices, and recent state government limits on fossil fuel power purchasing and sales, the City would likely have faced a crisis in its ability to pay off the CTs, and might have been forced to run them more often, and for more than 30 years, to pay for them. This latter reality would have meant that the CTs would have polluted -much- more than upgraded Mirant natural gas peakers. 4) If the Mirant diesel turbines are upgraded, this will be done gradually, one turbine at a time. So if, by the time the first turbine was upgraded, the Transbay Cable was online, and sufficient solar, wind and efficiency were installed; the Cal ISO might very well decide that only the one upgraded turbine (or possibly even no turbines) was necessary; and that the other two turbines could then simply be shut down immediately saving tens of millions of dollars, and setting a solid precedent for San Francisco to simply build more renewables and efficiency and rapidly shut down even that last remaining turbine. Clearly in this gradually phased upgrade scenario, it is highly likely that within just a few years (most likely when the Community Choice renewable energy project has installed its first 360 megawatts of clean renewable capacity by around 2012) we would be shutting down -all- of the fossil fuel power plants in the City. In other words, no more polluting power plants at all within just 4 years! 5) In the Cal ISO options described for proceeding with the plan to upgrade the Mirant diesels, the Cal ISO said that one of those options would allow the City to control the operation of those upgraded turbines and only require them to be turned on during real electricity demand emergencies. Now, with that potential better scenario established, I would recommend that we stay with the strong strategy that has won us such a huge change; and that we therefore -continue- challenging the SFPUC and Cal ISO and -continue- to insist that -no- fossil fuel generation will be necessary once the Transbay Cable is installed, and that the new debate should be between either upgrading the Mirant diesels, or instead saving ourselves that $60 million upgrade cost, and spending that money to aggressively accelerate our installation of solar, wind, and efficiency projects as we completely shut down Mirant in 2010! We would be truly guiding the world strongly into a zero fossil fuel future. Next Steps The Board of Supervisors continued its vote on the ICC CT peaker project contract to Tuesday, July 15, and it is likely that on that day they will simply table the CT project. -However- Sophie Maxwell is -still- stubbornly clinging to the CT project and has rapidly introduced into committee for this Monday, a new resolution (see attached pdf file) which -claims- to start a new search for alternatives for shutting down Mirant, but which will instead simply deceptively reinforce the same old SFPUC verbal tricks around taking the CT project seriously. This would force the Board of Supervisors back into yet another 'he said - she said' technical debate between the CT project and the possible upgraded Mirant diesels project. If Maxwell succeeds in playing her latest game, we will face yet another grueling set of hearings comparing the CT project to other options, instead of having the much more progressive debate over whether to upgrade the Mirant diesels, or simply go all renewables and efficiency by 2012. Ross Mirkarimi's office will likely introduce some strong amendments to the Maxwell resolution that remove all of its game playing and instead turn the City to that much better debate between the Mirant diesels and an all renewables option; but he will not get a chance to introduce those amendments until the Maxwell measure reaches the full Board of Supervisors. This is because Maxwell's resolution will be heard in the Government Audit and Oversight Committee this Monday morning where she and her CT project ally Aaron Peskin will simply pass it on to the full Board without real debate, and will probably stonewall any amendments. So we have yet another golden opportunity to be heard on this issue on Monday morning - this time, to tell Sophie Maxwell and Aaron Peskin loud and clear that we demand an end to any more useless, time wasting debates over the CT project, and to insist that the Supervisors now ask the SFPUC to come up with a renewables only energy plan to close Mirant down completely in 2010 when the Transbay cable comes online. Keep in mind that Sophie's item is just a resolution, so don't necessarily break your back to show up at the Monday hearing. However, it is always good for us to get another chance to speak on this issue, and this new hearing now gives us a chance to raise the level of debate to a discussion of how to get -rid- of fossil fuel power plants in San Francisco and replace them with clean renewable energy by the end of this decade! So if you can make it, by all means do. :) To see the hearing time, location, and details go to http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=82213 Sophie's resolution is first on the agenda, and entitled 'Closure of the Potrero Power Plant'. (Note that although Ross and Chris Daly are listed as co-sponsors of the item, they have now been informed of the problems with the resolution, and will act to remove the trick language in it.) peace Eric Brooks -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

2 1

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

07 Jun '08

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

1 0

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

07 Jun '08

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

1 0

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

07 Jun '08

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

1 0

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

07 Jun '08

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

1 0

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

06 Jun '08

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

1 0

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

04 Jun '08

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

1 0