July 2008 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Reminder - Transportation and Sustainability Joint Meeting Tomorrow 6:30 pm SFGP Office
by Eric Brooks 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

Reminder - Transportation and Sustainability Joint Meeting Tomorrow 6:30 pm SFGP Office Lots to talk about. - Board came close to rejecting MTA budget (Fare Hikes, etc.) - Bike plan woes - Decisions on water platform - ALL please read Mato Ska's (Martin Zehr's) emailed materials before the meeting - SF Clean Energy Act Campaign - Big peaker news - Peak Oil Update? peace Eric -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

2 1

Re: [Transpo] No bike injuction information on City Attorney website
by Ted Strawser 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

Hi Matt Thank you for the information, the updated website, and, especially, the conversation yesterday. I am glad to hear that there is more behind the scenes and that the City Attorney does see the bike plan injunction as a priority. I do, also, agree that the website may not have been the best place for me to interpolate the efforts of the City Attorney. I do still believe, however, that the record of Mr. Herrera on the bike plan injunction will speak volumes to his creditials as an environmentalist as he continues his exploration of a future Mayoral candidacy. As this injunction continues to drag on, the environmental priorities of the City Attorney's office will be best judged by the strategies, resources, and creativity that is put into the bike plan injunction. If you request the court provide relief from the injunction once and recieve such relief.... the obvious question will be "why didnt you request relief a dozen times". That story would look like an office that did not do all that it could. Alternatively, if you request relief 20 times and are successful five, that would look more like an office that is working hard to make the best of a bad situation. As it stands, the City Attorney's office did not appeal the injunction and (as I understand it) hasn't spent much time infront of a judge arguing for relief on behalf of the 160,000 SF cyclists that ride a bike once a week. I am encouraged by your strong words, even as I was disappointed not to see the City Attorney attend yesterday's bike plan rally. But, still, I look forward to the months to come when the priorities and efforts that you described come to fruition. Thanks again for the good discussion Ted Strawser San Francisco ----- Original Message ---- From: Matt Dorsey <Matt.Dorsey(a)sfgov.org> To: tedstrawser(a)yahoo.com Cc: board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org; cityattorney(a)sfgov.org; gavin.newsom(a)sfgov.org; SF BIke <sfbike(a)lists.riseup.net>; steve(a)sfbg.com; transpo(a)sfgreens.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:11:38 PM Subject: Re: No bike injuction information on City Attorney website We certainly understand your frustration with respect to the timeline of the court-ordered environmental review as well as with the underlying injunction, Ted, and I can assure you that City Attorney Herrera shares that frustration. In response to your email, I've uploaded a PDF of the major pleadings and orders from the case, which I am certain will demonstrate this office's considerable efforts in fighting the legal challenges to the City's Bicycle Plan. To the extent the absence of these documents left you with the mistaken impression that this matter has been anything short of a top priority, I apologize: the Web site is my responsibility, and I regret that it doesn't always reflect the hard work and priorities of this office and the public servants who work here. Our Web site is available at the following URL... http://www.sfgov.org/cityattorney/ Apart from the City Attorney's legal defense of the Bicycle Plan, this office has repeatedly petitioned the Court to narrow the scope of the injunction; for general relief for modifications necessary for public safety exigencies; and for specific modifications, including that recently approved at Fell and Masonic. If you wish to access the complete docket of the case, you may find it online at the San Francisco Superior Court Web site at the following URL... http://webaccess.sftc.org/scripts/magic94/Mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAM… ...and by entering the case number: 505509. It is my understanding that a Deputy City Attorney will provide a brief status report on the legal case at this afternoon's hearing of the Board of Supervisors' Land Use and Economic Development Committee. As with any litigation to which the City is party, however, detailed discussions of litigation strategy are conducted only in closed session with the Board because of attorney-client confidentiality. I hope the documents I've made available online help inform you of some of the legal challenges we've faced and the efforts we've undertaken to address them. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to let me know. Best, MATT DORSEY Communications Director ------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA San Francisco City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 (415) 554-4662 Direct (415) 554-4700 Reception (415) 554-4715 Facsimile (415) 554-6770 TTY Ted Strawser <tedstrawser(a)yahoo.com> 07/21/2008 10:44 AM To cityattorney(a)sfgov.org cc SF BIke <sfbike(a)lists.riseup.net>, gavin.newsom(a)sfgov.org, board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org, steve(a)sfbg.com, matt.dorsey(a)sfgov.org, transpo(a)sfgreens.org Subject No bike injuction information on City Attorney website Dear Mr. Herrera Looking at the front page of your own website and searching through SF Gate, I can find zero evidence that you are spending any time at all working on the bike injuction. I originally assumed it was simply a "low priority" for you. Could it be true that, in fact, this is a "no priority". Will we see you at the rally today in front of City Hall? I would appreciate hearing from your office whether you have a plan to represent the 160,000 San Franciscans who ride their bikes in the city at least once a week. Your efforts to date, if there have been any, have been quite unacceptable (and unsuccessful by the way). Dissapointed, Ted Strawser San Francisco

1 0

No bike injuction information on City Attorney website
by Ted Strawser 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

Dear Mr. Herrera Looking at the front page of your own website and searching through SF Gate, I can find zero evidence that you are spending any time at all working on the bike injuction. I originally assumed it was simply a "low priority" for you. Could it be true that, in fact, this is a "no priority". Will we see you at the rally today in front of City Hall? I would appreciate hearing from your office whether you have a plan to represent the 160,000 San Franciscans who ride their bikes in the city at least once a week. Your efforts to date, if there have been any, have been quite unacceptable (and unsuccessful by the way). Dissapointed, Ted Strawser San Francisco

1 0

FYI: Ethanol pollution could be worse than gasoline
by Ann Garrison 13 Jul '08

13 Jul '08

http://www.relocalize.net/ethanol_pollution_worse_than_gasoline

1 0

Digg Story: U.S. Air Force to to fly on coal-to-liquid transpo fuel.
by Digg 09 Jul '08

09 Jul '08

so I'll just do my best with whatever time was allotted tonight 'cause I coudn't make the cc meeting. digg user anniegarrison would like to share this story with you: http://digg.com/world_news/U_S_Air_Force_to_to_fly_on_coal_to_liquid_transp… --- "U.S. Air Force to to fly on coal-to-liquid transpo fuel." Coal-based Air Force jet fuel will be more refined than the coal-based diesel that Air Force vehicles burn on the ground, but whoever's commanding the Air Force, presumably the commander-in-chief, seems convinced that an Air Force running on coal-based transpo fuel could finally persuade us, resistant consumers. Peabody Coal's big campaign $ pay. +1 people dugg this story To verify that this email was sent by Digg user anniegarrison, visit: http://digg.com/verifymail?key=3c3bbbf33d2400e6e3443561a0855a5c&OTC-em-st2 To opt out of ALL future emails from Digg, visit: http://digg.com/optout?key=7fe520eb59f913cc6db3ed6e793e03f3&OTC-em-st3 Digg will NOT store your email address, even if you opt out! Digg will store only an encrypted key, which even Digg can't decipher.

1 0

Hidden World Bank Report: Biofuels Cause 75% Rise In Food Prices
by Eric Brooks 07 Jul '08

07 Jul '08

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive Aditya Chakrabortty The Guardian (UK) Friday July 4, 2008 Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian. The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush. "It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday. The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels. It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/19/climatechange.biofuels> to record levels. Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released. "Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat." Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation". President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases." Even successive droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices. Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher. "Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period. It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher. Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply. The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact. Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants. "It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change." ### -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0