- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Fw: Re: Trees and carbon offsets
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 25 Sep '07

25 Sep '07

Hello Everyone, Just in case you thought trees would be a significant part of carbon sequestration programs ... The following is a review of an article that is in the current edition of Audubon. Sue A Critique of Tree Planting in Response to Global Warming In "As Ugly As a Tree" in the September/October issue of Audubon, conservationist and author Ted Williams blasts the mass planting of trees as an offset to the production of carbon dioxide.� For starters, most of the tree planting that is taking place as a response to global warming is the planting of monocultures; and monocultures, even of native� species, prevent natural forests from growing on the given sites. Plantations do not harbor the diversity of species found in natural forests, and they are generally not sustainable, as they usually require heavy applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides.� Furthermore, although prevention of logging and restoration of cutover forests, preferably through allowing natural re-growth, can slow global warming, planting trees cannot sequester enough carbon to make a meaningful impact on climate change.� Williams quotes Andy Stahl director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE):� there are two kinds of carbon on the planet, above ground carbon and below ground carbon, which is stored in fossil fuels.� Above ground carbon cycles as vegetation grows, taking in carbon; and dies, releasing it.� "Planting trees doesn't affect the amount of carbon above ground in any long-term sense; it just changes its location. We're screwing ourselves if we use tree planting to justify pumping carbon from underground."� In terms of carbon sequestration, restoring prairies appears to be more useful than planting forests, Williams states.� Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has found through modeling that, north of Florida, trees "absorb more heat from the sun than surrounding low vegetation, particularly when it's covered with snow."� Grassland and shrub lands sequester carbon in their extensive underground root systems, and they "reflect solar heat."� Mass tree planting is being promoted by industries heavily invested in fossil fuels as a means of greening their image.� Individuals can usefully plant trees around their houses to provide natural cooling; and some forms of carbon offsetting--supporting energy conservation and renewable energy and assisting in prairie restoration, for example, "make excellent sense."� However, Williams concludes that we should not allow ourselves to be taken in by industry's message that voluntary efforts alone can make a difference to climate change.� Legislation will be necessary, and Williams asks for "mandatory and draconian caps of carbon emissions."� -----Original Message----- >From: "susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> >Sent: Sep 24, 2007 11:39 AM >To: gravanis(a)earthlink.net >Subject: Re: Trees and carbon offsets > >Hi Ruth, > >I went on line to look for this in the current edition of Audubon but could not find it. DO you have the link? > >Sue > >-- Ruth Gravanis <gravanis(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >I highly recommend this article in the current issue of Audubon magazine, Sept-Oct, 2007, page 44: > >"As Ugly as a Tree" by Ted Williams > >"Some carbon offsetting - that which supports energy conservation or renewable enery - makes excellent sense. But some doesn't, especially the wrong kind of tree planting - that is, most of it." > > >--Ruth > >

3 2

SF DOE on Peak Moment TV
by Dennis Brumm 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

Cal Broomhead, Melissa Capria on Peak Moment (recorded a year ago): http://www.peakmoment.tv/conversations/74.html

1 0

No. Calif. Post Carbon Network Meeting: September 29
by Dennis Brumm 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

(Please forward to people who might be interested:) There will be a meeting of the Northern California Post Carbon Network on September 29th at the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, 953 DeHaro Street in San Francisco. The meeting will run from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on that Saturday. An anonymous donor has covered the cost of the meeting space, so attendance is free. All attendees will receive an oil age poster donated by SF Informatics. (See: http://www.oilposter.org/) The facilitators for the meeting will be Saba Malik of Post Carbon Santa Clara Valley, and Michael Poremba of San Francisco Post Carbon. The schedule of events includes: 10:00-10:15 - Introductions 10:15-11:45 - Presentation: David Fridley, on "The Myths of Biofuels" (presentation with Q&A; A video DVD of an earlier presentation of Mr. Fridley's will be available as well, at cost) 11:45 - 12:45 - Pot Luck Lunch - Bring food to share, and preferably your own cutlery (and plate if possible) to avoid paper and plastic waste 12:45 - 1:45 - Presentation: Michael Poremba "Climate Change and Peak Oil" (how are they related, where is the overlap, etc.) At 1:45 there will be (at least) two breakout sessions, with the following topics: Michael Poremba will continue in a break out with the topics relating to Climate Change and Peak Oil. Linda Perrine will conduct a group on relocalizing food. At 4:00 the groups will come together in the main hall and each will present a 15 minute summary of their groups' progress. There will be 15 minutes at the end of this for general socializing. For any attendees you who can stay beyond 5 PM and who wish to continue the socializing and discussions, there will be a dinner at a local inexpensive restaurant (as of yet undetermined). Please RSVP to this (richard(a)katznip.com) by September 27. Saba Malik, Michael Poremba, Linda Perrine, Jeanne Rosenmeier, Dennis Brumm, and Richard Katz

1 0

McGoldrick Preparing Elected MTA Ballot Measure
by Eric Brooks 12 Sep '07

12 Sep '07

Jake McGoldrick, in Roll Call For Introductions today, announced his intention to draft a ballot amendment to change the MTA to an elected board membership, to go on the June '08 ballot. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

Fwd: “Central Subway” Forum hosted by D3DC
by Eric Brooks 05 Sep '07

05 Sep '07

District 3 Democratic Club invites you to the following forum: *?Central Subway?* TIME: Monday, September 10th, 6pm - 8:15pm LOCATION: Bocce Café in North Beach 478 Green St, SF 94133 (cross street Grant St) in the back outdoor covered area http://boccecafe.com PANELISTS: * John Funghi - Central Subway Project Manager, S.F. Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) * * Steve Taber - Central Subway Project Expert, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research * Association (SPUR) * Cathie Lam - Community Organizer focused on Central Subway, Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) * AGENDA: 6:00 - 6:30pm Mix & mingle reception (wine & appetizers) 6:30 - 8:15pm Forum discussion followed by Q&A. DESCRIPTION: The Central Subway is an extension of the Muni Metro light rail system in San Francisco, from the Caltrain commuter rail depot at 4th and King streets to Chinatown. The subway is the second phase of the Third Street Light Rail Project. Still in its planning stages, the Central Subway is currently scheduled for completion by 2016. It is anticipated to carry 44,700 riders a day by 2030. Some of the discussion items include: ? Stations: New underground stations will be built at the Moscone Center near Fourth and Folsom streets in SOMA, Stockton and O?Farrell streets near Union Square (connected to the Market Street subway at Powell Street Station by a pedestrian passage), and in Chinatown at Stockton and Clay streets. In the future plans the line could be extended further north to North Beach and Fisherman?s Wharf. ? Station Sizes: Balancing anticipated demand, costs and efficiency. ? Funding: The initial capital cost would be $1.4 billion for the 1.7 mile light rail line. Muni would have to spend an additional $4 million/year in local operating subsidies. ? Planning Tardiness: Federal transit officials warned Muni in February that the agency needs to speed up planning on the Central Subway light rail project or risk losing $762 million in funding. The Central Subway?s current status is obtaining comments on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Fourth Street alignment. *** ______________________________ You are on the email list for the District 3 Democratic Club. We send out email notifications on the agenda items for our upcoming meetings. If you would like to be removed from this mailing list please reply to this email with a "REMOVE" in the subject and body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft® Office Live! <http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2755??PS=47575>

1 0

Useful Video
by Dennis Brumm 01 Sep '07

01 Sep '07

Greensumption: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i79a1Sr73uw (peak oil, globalization, climate change, "green" building, Prius, et. al.)

1 0

Re: [Transpo] [SFGP CC] Muni Charter Amendment
by Dave Snyder 10 Aug '07

10 Aug '07

Damn my fucking laziness. I should have gone to the transpo wg mtg. My responses/opinion: >The SF Green Party believes that as a Transit First city, SF must >limit the amount of new parking that we build in order to ensure >smooth operation of public transit. Prop X would only allow an >increase in private parking above current limits with a >supermajority (9 of 11 members) of the Board of Supervisors. On the >other hand, lowering the current limits would require only a simple >majority of the Board. This provision of Prop X would supersede >Prop Z (replace with letter of Gridlock For Neighborhoods >proposition). Yes. >We also support returning more control over the MTA budget to our >elected representatives; Prop X lowers the current threshold of 8 >members of the Board of Supervisors required to reject the budget to >7 members. We think this limit should be lowered to a simple >majority, and include the power of line item veto. Line item veto means the Board can determine how to deploy service, not Muni. That decision, then, will be made based upon the political power of the Board members. Considering that poor people in general are more poorly represented than the rich, and that progressive Board members are in the minority, guess where service will be preserved and cut: the rich will get good transit service and the poor will get screwed. A Green Party key value is democracy, so on principle an elected MTA might solve this problem. Giving the Board line item veto and more authority over the day-to-day operations of the MTA will screw the poor. >Prop X dedicates more city funds to the MTA. Although this would >allow more stable funding for Muni, there is no new revenue source >in this proposition; all new money would come from the General Fund. I like this personally, but don't think the Green Party necessarily should. The Green Party should call for more taxes on the rich to pay for transit (I like that, too, of course.) >We have concerns that Prop X will continue the failed policies of a >board consisting entirely of mayoral appointees, which has raised >Muni fares twice in recent years rather than aggressively seeking >other sources of funding. In a time of global warming and peak oil, >SF needs radical rather than incremental improvement to our public >transit system. Incremental tinkering with policy is NOT â*Transit >First.â* I have that concern too, but the Board has the authority to confirm or reject Mayoral nominees with a simple majority vote, and the commissioners cannot be removed by the Mayor once approved by the Board. Fact: the MTA sought additional funding two years ago but the Board of Supervisors rejected the parking rate increases. >We also have concerns about greenwashing in Prop X, as there is much >language urging environmental improvement by the MTA, but no >proposed infrastructure or measures of accountability to ensure that >these changes actually happen. Similarly, there is a lack of >accountability for reaching Muni performance standards. No argument here. Except that the report, which will surely show failure to meet the goals, can be used to illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality. >We think the generous pay raises in Prop X for MTA employees should >be linked to improvements in performance, in cases where the job >duties of the employee have the potential to directly result in >performance increases. Prop X also provides no incentive to improve >MTA employee attendance. Not true. It's precisely the pay increase that provides the incentive to improve MTA staff attendance, because it's the pay increase that gives management the leverage to change the work rules that hinder their ability to enforce attendance. >On balance, we support Prop X, and urge a YES vote. However, we >hope that a stronger measure that addresses the deficiencies of this >one will appear on a future ballt. What the Green Party would want in a future measure, in my opinion, would be more funding from a new source that taxed the rich and environmentally or socially undesirable behavior (such as driving), and a democratically elected and even more independent MTA. Dave > >Sue > >marc <marc(a)cybre.net> wrote: > > >On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, John-Marc Chandonia wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 12:01:10PM -0700, marc wrote: >> > The MUNI CA is weak and inoffensive enough absent the parking language to >> > not oppose. Peskin's insertion of the parking language complicates mild >> > MUNI reform. The outside deal that Peskin cut to allow massive garages in >> > the Western SOMA SUD is the show stopped. >> >> I'm out of the loop, but I thought the latter deal will be on the >> Feb ballot (which we'll presumably oppose). If we missed something >> in the Nov MUNI CA, we can oppose or be neutral on it. > >I don't want to legitimate the deal that screws our neighborhood. > >As denizens of SOMA, we should stand with the community against the deal. > >The CA is part of the deal. > >-marc > > > > >Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48224/*http://sims.yahoo.com/>Play Sims >Stories at Yahoo! Games.

1 0

Peskin Becoming A Menace - Preparing To Make Deal On Parking
by Eric Brooks 06 Aug '07

06 Aug '07

Hey all, Any of you with any influence on Peskin should tell him to get the hell back in the progressive camp, or we will campaign against him if he runs for higher office. In the latest of a long string of betrayals, Peskin is preparing to make a compromise on parking. see below or http://www.examiner.com/printa-865822~Opponents_ask_for_space_on_S.F._parki… Opponents ask for space on S.F. parking issue A possible compromise would bring an end to a controversial parking initiative slated for the November ballot. <javascript:popUpWinPP('ShowPhoto.cfm?filename=/images/newsroom/3A608D94-3048-2F0A-AA7CB9F2F7EBEA1A.jpg&caption=A possible compromise would bring an end to a controversial parking initiative slated for the November ballot.','pp')> (Examiner file photo) A possible compromise would bring an end to a controversial parking initiative slated for the November ballot. Alexandria Rocha, The Examiner 2007-08-06 16:10:00.0 Current rank: # *10* of 7,004 SAN FRANCISCO - A controversial parking initiative slated for the November ballot may be left by the wayside, as a proposed deal between opposing forces could leave the measure with little financial and political support. Weekend negotiations between downtown business-interest groups, transit advocates and Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin produced a possible compromise that would derail a November measure to increase The City's parking supply and, at the same time, fuel support for a separate Muni reform initiative. While it's too late to make changes to either initiative, both of which will appear on the November ballot, transit advocates have asked backers of the parking initiative to withdraw support from the measure. In exchange, they will support a third initiative on the February ballot that would help increase parking throughout The City, but with greater restrictions than the current measure. "This is predicated on them no longer running a campaign," Peskin said. "It's 'yes' on Muni reform, 'no' on adding 100,000 cars to a city that already has half a million, and 'yes' to a sensible parking policy in February." The neighborhood parking initiative, backed by downtown businesses, would loosen parking restrictions and allow developers to build parking garages with little planning oversight. Transit advocates claim the measure would reverse decades of transit-first planning guidelines. If backers agree to withdraw support of the November parking measure, Peskin said he is ready to introduce a measure for the February ballot as early as today. However, Jim Ross, a consultant for the parking initiative, said Sunday that the campaign for the November parking initiative is still moving forward. "That may change next week," he said. "But as far as I know, there's no compromise or deal." Peskin's Sensible Parking Initiative for the February ballot would allow developers to build one parking space for each new unit in the Marina, Sunset, Richmond and Outer Mission neighborhoods. Specific neighborhood plans designed around public transit, such as the Balboa Park plan, could apply for an exemption from the one-to-one requirement. The February measure would retain the current parking restrictions downtown, while allowing developers to build one or more parking garages with a total of 1,500 new parking spaces in the South of Market neighborhood, according to Peskin, specifically the area bordered by Townsend Street in the southeast, 10th Street in the southwest, Howard Street in the northwest, and Sixth Street in the northeast. "What this compromise would do is allow us to make real progress on Muni and add a moderate amount of parking in appropriate places," said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research association, a local think tank. arocha(a)examiner.com <mailto:arocha@examiner.com> Examiner

1 0

proposed language on Peskin amendment
by John-Marc Chandonia 01 Aug '07

01 Aug '07

Hi, My minutes from last night's meeting, including the draft language, are online: http://sfgreenparty.org/events/singleminutes.gem?idx=195 Since I'll be out of town for much of the time between now and the endorsement GM, please send edits to the transpo list. Sue, when the group thinks the language is "done," please send it to the active list and the CC to be scheduled for a decision. Jeanne has agreed to present if this comes up at the first endorsement GM, when I'll be out of town. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/

1 0

Live call-in show with Dave Snyder
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 30 Jul '07

30 Jul '07

Hello Everyone, Tune into Channel 29 on Tuesday, July 31, from 7 to 7:30 p.m. for a live call-in show. I will be interviewing Dave Snyder, former Executive Director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, on my show "Car-Free Talk" about transportation-related ballot measures and other issues. The number is 621-4472. What: Dave Snyder on Car-Free Talk When: Tuesday, July 31 What time: 7 to 7:30 p.m. Channel: 29 Number to call: 621-4472 Sue

1 0