Towards clean air, clean water, sustainable development and protection of our natural heritage for everyone, not just those who can afford it.

California Fire Smoke Map

July 11, 2008

We have been having some degree of smoke cover here in the San Francisco Bay area for some time, and today it is particularly bad. I have found a map of smoke coverage for all of California and even Nevada that calculates the coverage at the time you click the map. I can't seem to embed this map, but it is worth clicking through -- especially if you live in one of the affected areas. Here it is:

WunderMap Interactive Radar & Weather Stations : Wunderground Preview Site

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

What Is A Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax?

June 25, 2008

I'd like to talk about a "revenue-neutral" carbon tax.

Here is the idea: You tax carbon-based "fossil fuel" energy at the source: when oil or coal or gas is originally extracted and sold you tax it. Then you divide up that tax money equally and give it to each citizen.

Giving the entire tax back makes it "revenue-neutral" meaning exactly as much that is taxed is given back. This means that the net effect on the overall economy is neutral. But it promotes the use of renewable, non-polluting energy sources which overall has a very positive effect on the economy whether you worry about global warming or not. (A more energy-efficient economy means everyone spends less to get the same results.)

What would this mean to most Americans? A $200 per ton carbon tax would roughly mean a $9000 check to each American family each year. This check offsets any higher prices that might be caused by the tax. If you use less carbon-based energy you come out way ahead financially. If you use more you pay more. Economists say that 4/5 of us would come out ahead. Only the richest 1/5 would pay more. And THEY can pay less by CHOOSING to using less energy. (What would a $9,000 check mean for families in this economy?)

This creates a huge incentive for everyone to become more energy-efficient, which means your costs go down. If you are a business energy-efficiency means you increase profits. If you are a family it means you spend less on electricity and natural gas. it's the same idea as buying a Prius and then spending less on gasoline. But becoming energy-efficient means that those costs go away forever. If you install solar panels you never pay another electric bill. If you add insulation to your house your heating and cooling bills go down forever.

A carbon tax means that WE get that money, not the Middle East. It means that we have incentive to start building mass transit again. It means that research into alternative energy sources (killed by Republicans) gets started again.

AND it means that we are putting less and less carbon into the air.

You can learn more at the Carbon Tax Center.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Job Killers -- Or Just More Fear?

May 20, 2008

The California Chamber of Commerce has released its annual list of what it calls "job-killer bills."

Why is it that the Chamber's job-killer bills hit-list seems to only target Democrats? Not a single targeted bill belongs to a Republican. "Bad bills", like those designed to protect public health, climate concerns or consumer rights legislation, are all authored by Democrats. The chamber has always been a lobbying organization, but it has gotten so bad that the Chamber seems to have devolved into little more than just one more fear-mongering Republican Party front group.

The "job killers" on this list are any laws that protect consumers, reduce energy use, require worker protections or anything else that might hinder a very few corporate executives from reeling in another several-hundred-million dollars a year. The jobs that are "killed" are those of lobbyists for the energy industry.

The first group on the "job killer" list is bills that ask for any kind of energy or water conservation or environmental standards for new housing construction. For example, AB 1085. The bill describes itself as undating,

"building design and construction standards and energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy."

But the Chamber's job-killer list says this

Substantially increases the cost of housing and development in California by implementing significant energy efficiency measures

Now, think about this -- if it costs less to heat and cool your house, this saves you money. If you want to add energy-saving technology like solar electric or water-heating on your house this creates good jobs. Maybe Exxon won't benefit as much from this as the new, upcoming solar industry, but heck, the solar companies aren't coughing up the big bucks and providing the good jobs to the Chamber of Commerce's lobbyists!

The next group of "job killers" is "workplace mandates" like paid sick leave for employees, disability pay for on-the-job injuries or providing California’s citizens with health insurance.

Ah yes, the money businesses pay out to provide sick leave and disability pay for those pesky employees "kills jobs." They could hire so many more people if they didn't have to actually pay them and keep them from getting injured! This is one of the oldest arguments in the books. Slaves are always cheaper. But why do we have an economy if not to provide US with good jobs and other benefits? Do we have an economy so a very few corporate CEOs get all the money and benefits, or do we have an economy so the people can also get good pay and benefits and safe working conditions? The evidence (this, for example) is clear that good wages and benefits do not hurt jobs or the economy.

Then there are “economic development barriers” like asking online retailers to collect the same sales taxes that you local business owner collects, asking the wealthy to help pay for our schools, raising fire standards in high-risk fire areas and protecting our environment. I guess the online retailers must be paying the Chamber more this year than the retailers who have to actually rent storefronts and pay wages in your town. I can't think of any other reason why SOME retailers should collect sales taxes and others should be exempt. Doesn't this change the playing field waaayyy in favor of online retailers and harm the prospects of businesses that actually set up in our local communities? God forbid we ask them to help pay for our schools and police and fire protection!

This "job killer: list is nothing more than the use of fear to scare us into allowing a few rich corporations to have their way. By saying that protecting workers or the environment might "cost jobs" they are trying to make us afraid to ask these big corporations to live up to their responsibilities to our communities. How long will we let these lobbyists make us afraid?

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (2)

Conservation - A Call To Action

April 04, 2008

The U.S. House will be considering the National Landscape Conservation System Act next week. This act will permanently recognize a conservation system that protects 26-million acres of our West's wildest lands. This includes California's Pacific Crest Trail.

This video, "Hidden Treasures of the American West," explains:

You can take action by visiting The Wilderness Society's Action page at: http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/nlcs_general

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Yes, but how do they do it with a straight face?

December 20, 2007

The fact that the U.S. EPA refused to grant California a waiver so we can initiate our own air emissions standards is really no surprise to anyone who has watched this administration ignore science, our legal system, common sense and the Constitution. Whether waterboarding, abstinence only education, refusing to fund "No Child Left Behind", illegally issuing wire taps without court order, or refusing to honor validly issued subpoena from Congress (to name only a very few of this administration's scofflaw attitude), it is the audacity and mendacity that is so astonishing. It makes one wonder whether the right-wing extremist P.R. firms have a class in how to lie with a straight face, perhaps calling it something like "How stupid do we think the American people really are?"

The chutzpah is endless---with the President today in his own press conference exemplifying it with astonishing ease. But the lack of embarassment or apology is what really takes the cake. And when EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson claimed that the reason for the waiver denials is that and I quote here: "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules." , that really takes the cake.
A clear national solution??? Nothing clear about said solution. Nothing national about it. And in fact, no solution identified either. Besides which, Bush doesn't even believe in global warming. Is it a "national solution" of denial or just plain old deception that this administration is trying to foist on a not-so-unsuspecting public?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

Things CAN Change!

November 29, 2007

One reason so many people in California and around the country "tune out" and don't participate in our own government is they believe that creating change is beyond their control. It often seems that things are locked in by powerful, wealthy interests with regular people locked out of the process. This feeling of loss of control has been established by many disappointments over the years.

There are experiments in "learned helplessness" in which rats are unable to control when they are given shocks. Eventually they just lie down and give up.

For example, rats that have been exposed to shocks that they cannot control often become strikingly passive when later placed in new traumatic situations. They appear numb to the new trauma as if they have "given up." Alternatively, they also become especially fearful of environments where they experience similar traumas and will try to avoid such situations.

Does this sound like you, or people you know? Or maybe way too much of the state and country?

Take heart, for things CAN change! In Australia's last election the people threw out the bad-on-the-environment conservative government and brought in a government that promises to immediately sign the Kyoto anti-global-warming agreement to reduce carbon emissions.

And look who the new government is placing in charge of its environmental policies! Former Midnight Oil rocker Garrett named Australia's environment minister,

Peter Garrett - the towering, baldheaded former singer of the disbanded Australian rock group Midnight Oil - continued his long, strange tour from pop star to politician Thursday when he was named Australia's environment minister.

With his wild dancing and strident voice, Garrett was one of Australia's most recognizable singers until his band broke up in 2002, after belting out politically charged hits for more than 25 years.

Garrett founded Midnight Oil when he was a law student in 1973, but the semi-punk rock group did not achieve global fame until its 1987 track "Beds are Burning" - a protest song about Aboriginal land rights in Australia.

And so, to celebrate, here is something we can all "tune in" to:

Midnight Oil, Beds are Burning:

MORE »

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

Too often closing the barn door too late

November 15, 2007

Clearly human nature is want to ignore the obvious until it strikes us in the face, or in the ocean in the present case. Why we aren't willing to be sufficiently pro-active and take preventative measures in the face of imminent or likely disaster is a mystery on the one hand and yet an inevitability on the other. Or so it seems.

Take the oil spill in the San Francisco Bay on November 7, 2007---just over a week ago. We know that oil spills can and do have devastating impacts on wildlife, ocean eco-systems and local economies. We know, too, that much can be done to prevent or at least signficantly reduce the possibility of catastrophic consequences of oil spills. An obvious preventative measure is to require tankers to be double-hulled, or require the use of tugboats to help them traverse difficult passage-ways, like the San Francisco Bay during heavy fog. Another is to require our emergency response agencies be well-trained and well-equipped with the most up-to-date equipment to respond in case protective measures fail. Of course, this also requires a willingness to make an investment of resources.

In today's California, the notion of coughing up the bucks to protect against disasters or provide the resources to rapidly contain them if they do occur, is just not politically feasible. And heaven forbid we call upon those massive ships or the even more massive oil industry to pay sufficient fees to assure their product doesn't pollute our previous shores. But, when disaster strikes--by fire, by flood or by oil, we expect those resources to magically appear. We complain when aircraft shows up late to make water drops or when equipment to contain oil seepage isn't available or deployed quickly or when there just aren't enough people or machines available to do the job.

The consequences, of course, can be devastating....and the ultimate damage much more expensive than the costs of protecting ourselves in advance. Prevention is always worth a pound of cure, but if prevention keeps the problem from happening, we tend to believe that there wasn't a problem to begin with---so why spend the money in the first place? Or is it, sadly, the sage observation by great songwriter Joni Mitchell that "you don't know what you've got til its gone..."?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

The "Job Killer" Soundbite

October 16, 2007

During my tenure in the California legislature, I found it somewhat humorous that every bill calling for greater corporate accountability and responsibility to the health and well-being of the public or workers was called "a job killer"by the California Chamber of Commerce. This appellation was almost always not only overly simplistic, but wildly dishonest and inaccurate. When I brought a bill to require that we consider the health impacts on women and children of various chemicals and compounds when we establsih acceptable health standards, and not just consider the impacts on the average 6 foot 175 pound male, the bill was attacked as being a "job killer".

The first time I heard this, I thought the accuser was just kidding. But then I realized that the allegation came from a package of "talking points" handed out by the California Chamber of Commerce as part of their propoganda campaign to defeat any measures that would otherwise regulate their big business bosses. How in the world could you otherwise justify defeating a measure designed to protect the health of our people, and especially our children?

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

"Paper or Plastic?"

October 10, 2007

Assemblymember Lloyd Levine of Assembly District 40 discusses the importance of plastic bag recycling in California:

(photo credit eqca.org)

Paper or plastic? It seems like an innocent enough question, doesn't it? But, when you stop and think about where all the grocery bags we use end up, the question no longer seems quite so simple - particularly in the case of plastic bags.

The numbers are astounding: Californians use more than 19 billion plastic grocery bags each year, creating 147,038 tons of waste in our landfills. With Californians throwing away over 600 bags per second, they are creating enough waste every year to circle the planet over 250 times.

In Los Angeles County, an estimated 6 billion plastic grocery bags are distributed annually, of which only 1 percent are recycled. County supervisors voted just last month to study the issue of paper vs. plastic and whether to enact a ban on standard plastic bags, similar to one imposed in San Francisco.

As an avid runner I witness the problem first-hand. Running along the Los Angeles River, I come across thousands of plastic bags on the river banks, in trees, and floating in the river itself. My experience was confirmed by facts: During a routine Los Angeles River cleanup, plastic bags and film constituted 45 percent of the volume of litter collected - this is because they are so easily carried by wind from uncovered trash cans and dumpsters, vehicles, and solid waste facilities including landfills. This all amounts to more litter to collect on our beaches and state highways, which costs the state $303.2 million each year.

It quickly became clear to me that we needed to do something. That's why I authored Assembly Bill 2449, which officially became law on July 1. This measure requires grocery and retail stores to take back and recycle plastic grocery bags, making California and Rhode Island the only states in the U.S. with such a program.

Under the terms of the new law, more than 7,000 retail stores in California are required to prominently display plastic bag recycling bins and fund an educational campaign to raise awareness of plastic bag recycling and the use of reusable bags. The legislation also requires each store to make reusable bags available for customers to purchase.

And all these conditions are vital, because while volunteer coastal cleanups and public education efforts have been helpful in keeping California's coastlines clean, more needs to be done. To reduce marine debris the amount of waste generated on land must be reduced and disposed of properly.

Each year millions of seabirds, sea turtles, fish, and marine mammals become entangled in marine debris or ingest plastics they have mistaken for food. According to recent U.S. EPA estimates, marine debris has had a negative impact on at least 267 species around the world. The plastic can constrict an animal's movements and kill marine animals through exhaustion.

We can accomplish much toward remedying these unfortunate occurrences by making some modest changes in our behavior, and I need your help with the following things that will help make AB 2449 a success:

-Recycle your plastic bags at your grocery store;
-Ask your local store about its plastic bag recycling program;
-Buy reusable canvas shopping bags;
-Refuse a plastic bag; and
-Get stores to offer cash credits when bringing in your own bags.

If these simple things are done, all Californians can make an impact and play an instrumental role in helping to implement this important measure.

This article has been written by: Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, representing the 40th Assembly District

Posted by Jen - Comments (0)

Senate Bill 974 and The Art of the Possible

September 06, 2007

Recently, we posted a piece by Senator Alan Lowenthal, calling for passage of his container-fee measure, SB 974. This common-sense measure would have required a minimal fee on each container coming off the ships at the Ports of Long Beach, L.A. and Oakland where the air quality is so badly impacted by the vehicles transporting this important commerce. The fee generated would go to mitigate the filthy and unhealthy air quality. It would also be used to repair the infra-structure upon which the trucks and vehicles transporting these goods move.

Unfortunately, those who benefit from the commercial (read profit) aspects of this---the Wal-Marts and other big corporations, have been fighting tooth-and-nail to kill this bill. While Senator Lowenthal remains committed to its passage, the dark under-belly of politics has pushed back ferociously. Although they've been able to delay the measure, the pressure being put on the Governor and other legislators has increased because of the public concern and outcry that has moved this bill far beyond what the big moneyed lobbyists ever expected.

Although Senator Lowenthal has announced he will not move the bill this year, progress is clearly being made. The fact that he was able to sit face-to-face with the Governor means a great deal in terms of the importance this measure carries. Usually, meetings on bills occur with the Governor's underlings. In this case, the Governor has personally committed to some kind of fee to off-set the filth and dangerous conditions that surround the ports of our state.

But since this is politics, the fact is that the Gov. doesn't want to further alienate Big Business while he tries to shove some kind of healthcare "reform" down their throats. We don't think his idea of reform is much of anything, so long as the health insurance industry is still in the game and calling the shots. But Schwarzenegger is committed to putting something out there to placate the public demand for a fix of this completely broken system. Thus the delay on cleaning up the air. But this is politics--the art of the possible. So Senator Lowenthal will wait until January to rev up this important bill.

For many of us, this is just more frustration at the delay, while the health and lives of many continue to be sacrificed at the altar of greed and profit. But this is also a political world we live in. Sometimes the right thing takes a while to happen. In the case of SB 974 we'll expect to see that happen in the coming legislative year.

Here are Senator Lowenthal's thoughts on the situation:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (1)

The End-of-session Drama begins

September 05, 2007

This is the truly crazy-making time of the legislative year, when hundreds of bills line up on the floor like airplanes on a crowded runway. And productivity isn't measured by the quality of the bills being considered but rather by the number that are disposed of on the floor each day. With over 700 bills waiting for take-off or otherwise, it's a madhouse. Several bills have already been or will be delayed, postponed or canceled while most of those lined up will take off for the Governor's desk where their fate will be decided within thirty days of their final vote.

An action alert is up, here:

http://ga4.org/campaign/ActNowforCaliforniasEnergy Future

But read on for the details.

It is chaos, exhausting and usually a productive time. But this is also the time of year when egos and hard-feelings from past slights, disrespect or other machinations force otherwise important measures to languish and die, often even before hitting the runway.

Such is the fate of Senator Joe Simitian's bill, SB 412 which would required the Liquified Natural Gas supporters to demonstrate an actual need for the product before any LNG terminals could be built in California. This seems like a no-brainer in that these plants are enormously expensive to build and often present serious environmental concerns. It would only make sense that before California allow any to be constructed under those conditions that we prove they are actually necessary. With that in mind, the measure should have made it to the floor---but was held up in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, along with several other important measures that had been developed and passed not only through their "house of origin" (the Senate) but had made it beyond all the Assembly committees. The process then calls for them to be heard or just temporarily held in the Appropriations committee before being released for floor vote in that house. In SImitian's case, he had no such luck. Was it the nature of the bill and lots of opposition? Nope. Not in this case.

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Job Killer or Opportunity to Help Clean Up L.A.'s Filthy Air ?

August 31, 2007

Senator Alan Lowenthal has served in the California Legislature since 1998. He served six years in the State Assembly and was elected in 2004 as the senator from the 27th Senatorial District, representing the communities surrounding the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

He is a committed and strong voice for reasonable yet firm environmental protections, especially when dealing with issues of public health and air quality specifically. His SB 974 has engendered a full-scale push-back from big businesses both state-wide and nationally. In typical hyperbolic and hysterical fashion, these companies (which read like a Fortune 500 company who's who) claim that the measure will destroy business in California. As Senator Lowenthal explains below, this is typical business balony.....

What they don't, and can't do is deny the health problems they create or encourage when they deny any responsibility for the mess their current transportation practices engender. This measure will split a mere $30 per container use fee equally between air quality mitigation measures, such as the replacement of dirty diesel trucks and infrastructure improvements such as rail grade separations.

It all boils down to these big Fortune 500 companies, and their cronies, wanting to maintain the status quo which allows emitting filthy and noxious diesel fumes into the air and sustaining gridlock. Rather than addressing and trying to solve the very real issues of LA's deadly air quality, they prefer forcing California's residents to continue suffering so the rest of the country can have cheap goods. Who ultimately pays the price? In SB 974,Senator Lowenthal says it shouldn't be the health and well-being of Californians. This measure is moving its way toward the Governor's desk. He vetoed a similar measure last year. This time, we're hoping a groundswell of public support will force Schwarzenegger to do the right thing for the people of our state. Here are Senator Lowenthal's thoughts on the issue:

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Historic vote: California voters needed NOW to help raise fuel economy, curb global warming

July 31, 2007

Will California lead the way to curbing global warming and making the US less dependent on foreign oil? Or will we be held hostage by the dinosaurs in Detroit and Big Oil and Coal? A historic showdown is imminent in Congress. The time to make your voice heard is NOW.

For the first time in a decade, the U.S. Senate has voted to improve motor vehicle fuel economy, saving consumers at the pump and also reducing harmful pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. But the House is closely divided, with the auto, coal, and oil industries attempting to derail the momentum from the Senate victory. This is a critical moment for the environment, consumers, and the nation.

The burning question: Will enough lawmakers from California vote AYE for H.R. 1506, the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2007, to offset the NO votes from members of states dominated by the auto, coal, and oil interests? H.R. 1506 will raise fuel economy 10 miles per gallon over the next 10 years, to 35 mpg, and 4% every year afterward. These gains in fuel economy are achievable and long overdue. Any added costs for the vehicles will be offset by savings at the pump. Oh, and did we mention that we also help save the planet?

While California has the most to gain from raising fuel economy standards, both in decreased pollution and in savings on fuel costs, some California lawmakers are wavering, thanks to a barrage of phone calls and faxes--not to mention campaign contributions--- from auto, coal, and oil interests. Those lawmakers are seriously out of step with public opinion. Yet another poll, recently conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, shows overwhelming support among Californians for increasing fuel economy standards and addressing global warming. This should be a no-brainer, but some wavering lawmakers need to hear from more of us to realize they are going to be held accountable for this vote--by the public.

How can you make your voice heard at this critical time for California, our nation, and our planet?

Call wavering lawmakers and let them know you care about the planet. Urge them to vote for H.R. 1506 when Speaker Pelosi and the authors, Representatives Markey and Platts, bring the bill to the House floor.

Here's who to call TODAY:

U.S. Rep. Jim Costa (D-Fresno)
DC office: 202-225-3341
Fresno office: 559-495-1620

U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield)
DC office: 202-225-2915
Bakersfield office: 661-327-3611

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-El Segundo, Wilmington)
DC office: 202-225-8220
El Segundo office: 310-643-3636

U.S. Rep. Joe Baca (D-San Bernardino)
DC office: 202-225-6161
San Bernardino office: 909-885-2222

U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Solana Beach)
DC office: 202-225-0508
Solana Beach office: 858-350-1150

Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs)
DC office: 202-225-5330
Palm Springs office: 760-320-1076

Spread the word among your family and friends. The calls you make now will be among the most important you will ever make.

Thank you for speaking up, California!!

Posted by Rosemary Shahan - Comments (0)

The Big Corporate Bullies Are At It Again

July 17, 2007

The Big Corporate Bullies are at it again! Just when we thought they'd be embarassed and hiding from their latest shenanigans---pawning off bad medicine (think VIOXX) or seeing their Chinese competitors getting caught trying to sneak tainted pet food, toothpaste and fish into the U.S., they're back themselves trying to slam the courthouse doors shut so they can't be prosecuted for their own often dangerous antics.

What is it now? It's a new initiative they've just filed with the California Attorney General's office which will allow them to avoid accountability when they get caught doing things like discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, gender, age or disability. If this initiative makes it to the ballot and passes, they'll be able to get away with refusing to pay their workers for their earned pay, be passing off known damaged and dangerous products, illegally pollute our air and water with inpugnity. The list goes on and on.

How are these profiteers planning their next attack on protecting the public? They're staking out an initiative which will all but end class action lawsuits in the state of California by making them so hard and expensive for the little guy to bring to court, that they'll all but vanish. Using Bush-like double-speak to hide their true identity, these greedy CEO's and corporate polluters go by the totally misleading title of " Civil Justice Association " otherwise known as C-JAC. Like Bush's cronies, they're anything but seeking justice---it's just more and more about their profits and the public be damned.

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (2)

Lightblueline: Sending Out An SOS

July 15, 2007

From The Courage Campaign

Santa Barbara, the beachside villa I am fortunate enough to call home, has just become one of the first cities to show, definitively, just how real the climate crisis is. The City Council approved a plan to paint a light blue line on the streets. Officially called an "art exhibit," the line will run through the city, showing where the new shoreline will be if we don't stop global warming from melting Greenland and the ice caps.

You may have seen how this works in An Inconvenient Truth: as global temperatures rise, more and more of the ice on Greenland, Antarctica, and in the Arctic is melting, meaning that there's more liquid water in the oceans. This will cause widespread, permanent flooding across the world, including in lovely places like Santa Barbara. Parts of Santa Barbara (and Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and New York...) will be underwater if we don't work to slow down our carbon emissions - pollution which increases the greenhouse effect and warms the planet.

As much as I'd like to see the beach move even closer to my house, it's pretty clear that if flooding on the scale predicted by top scientists happens, we'll have millions and millions of people displaced, and acres of land will be washed away.

So, I'm going to listen to the message sent by Al Gore and his rock star friends. They've sent out an SOS, sounding the alarm so that this light blue line in Santa Barbara remains just a work of art and not a prediction.

Posted by Erik Love - Comments (0)

Green Blogging

June 13, 2007

From the Courage Campaign

I thought I was doing a pretty good job of energy conservation.  I always turn off the lights when I leave the room, and I use those compact florescent bulbs to replace the inefficient incandescents when they burn out.  I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to turning off the TV.  I rarely get caught accidentally leaving the refrigerator door open.  And I'm very proud to say that my fan even has a thermostat.But this blogging business can really run up the electric bill!  I've got a power-intensive workstation.  My computer is nearly always on, because I hate waiting for it to boot up.  Recently, I got a second monitor -- trust me, the benefits to having more than one monitor (especially if you're a writer) are amazing, but I'm sucking down twice as much electricity!  I've got a speaker system with a 80 watt subwoofer.  Add a couple of external hard disks... yeah, I'm a bona fide energy hog.

What's worse is that I'm apparently not alone.  A new study shows that when considering production, use, and disposal, annually computers put as much climate-change-causing CO₂ into the atmosphere as airlines.  You read that right -- computing worldwide hurts the atmosphere as much as the aviation industry.

Sounds like a huge crisis to me, and we as bloggers (and blog reading computer users) need to be on top of this. 

MORE »

Posted by Erik Love - Comments (0)

Auto Industry stalls Global Warming legislation

June 08, 2007

(Rosemary Shahan)

Caving in to aggressive lobbying by auto manufacturers and dealers who profit handsomely from the sales of muscle cars and enormous gas-guzzlers, California politicians refused to pass legislation that would have curbed greenhouse gas emissions and made fuel-efficient SUVs, pickups, minivans, and sedans more affordable. However, the author has vowed to continue the fight and revive the legislation next year.

The Clean Car Discount Act of 2007, AB 493, is championed by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City). It remains a top priority for environmental and consumer groups, as well as socially responsible businesses and faith-based organizations. Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety has been working actively to get the bill enacted.

Auto dealers made many legislators fearful of voting for the measure. Auto dealers are extremely active and well-connected politically. They spend heavily on political campaigns, and generally back conservative candidates. They take pride in punishing lawmakers who dare to stand up for consumers and the environment.

No Republicans were willing to vote for the bill, and a handful of anti-consumer Democratic lawmakers also voiced a reluctance to vote for it, despite polls showing strong public support for the measure.

"The Clean Car Discount program is designed to ensure choice by providing that some vehicles of every type will be unaffected or receive a rebate. Over 40 percent of the 1.7 million new vehicles purchased in California each year will be eligible for a rebate, and another 20 percent will not be affected at all. Given the breadth of choice, the Clean Car Discount program will help make cleaner vehicles more affordable for every California family," said Ruskin in his explanation of the measure.

In their attempt to kill the bill, auto dealers stooped to misleading tactics. One auto dealer, Fritz Hitchcock, President of Puente Hills Toyota in City of Industry, claimed in a letter to lawmakers that AB 493 would "penalize" disabled Californians. But in fact the bill expressly exempts persons with disabilities from having to pay any additional charges, and would have made various models that can accommodate wheelchairs less expensive.

More information about AB 493 is posted on Assemblymember Ruskin's website, at: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a21/

Auto interests also ran a deceptive ad in the Sacramento Bee the day before the vote. To get the scoop on the ad, check out the California Progress Report, at:

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/deceptive_ad_in.html

"The automakers have a long history of whining that they can't improve their products," said David Friedman, research director for the Clean Vehicles Program at UCS. "But the National Academy of Sciences concluded that conventional technology can boost the fuel economy of all vehicles, from two-seaters to four-by-fours. They can produce 34-mpg SUVs, 37-mpg minivans and 41-mpg family cars. UCS studies concluded that the auto companies can do even better."

Passage of AB 493 would have sped up the day when you can have your automotive cake and eat it too--by getting the vehicle you want, while paying less for fuel.

Steamed over global warming? Tired of paying through the nose for gas? Want to send a message? Let your local dealership know you won't buy another car from them until they drop their opposition to AB 493. The politicians have let us down. Now it's up to us. The auto market is softening, so even if only 10% of prospective buyers defer buying their next vehicle, it will have a huge impact.

Rosemary Shahan is the Executive Director of Consumers For Auto-Reliability and Safety. She wrote the first Lemon Law and has championed Consumer causes for over two decades. She serves on numerous progressive boards, including the Consumer Federation of California , Consumer Federation of America and is also a member of the Board of Speak Out California.

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Global Warming Action Alert

June 01, 2007

Auto manufacturers and dealers are trying to kill the single most important bill in Sacramento to reduce greenhouse gas emissions spewed into the air night and day by the leading culprits -- motor vehicles. You would think this bill would be a no-brainer for any lawmaker who wants to keep his or her legislative district above water. But that would be to underestimate the ability of the auto Neanderthals to obfuscate.

The bill is up for a key vote next Wednesday or Thursday, so now is the time for those of us who are rather fond of life on our planet to take action. Call your Assemblymember and urge him/her to vote yes on AB 493.

The author is Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City). If enacted, AB 493 will accelerate the availability of affordable low-emissions vehicles. Since the Bushites are in global warming denial, it falls to the states to act. Once again, California will be leading the way, but only if we win.

How it works is simple: AB 493 will add a surcharge onto the worst gas-guzzlers, and use the funds to provide rebates for gas-sippers. This will make lower emissions vehicles more affordable for moderate and low income consumers who also care about the environment. Each category of vehicle, including pickups and SUVs, will include models with either no surcharge or a rebate, preserving consumer choice. So if you want a minivan for your family, you can get, say, a Honda Odyssey at no extra charge. But if you hanker for a Hummer, be prepared to pay extra to cover the cost to the rest of the world for polluting our atmosphere.

AB 493 is supported by a long list of pro-environment, pro-consumer organizations. You can read more about it at the author's website. To find your state Assemblymember, visit the website for the CA Assembly's site here:

CA State Assembly

and click on "Find my district." Plug in your address, and up pops the contact information for your state Assemblymember. Call and urge him or her to stand up to the auto interests and vote in favor of AB 493!

Posted by Rosemary Shahan - Comments (0)

The smoke-and-mirrors governor

April 04, 2007

A new San Jose State University poll released today shows Governor Schwarzenegger with a 62% popularity rating. Although polls are often over-rated, as they are often just momentary snapshots of people's attitudes at any given moment, (except of course on election day, when that is the moment that counts the most), I find these numbers quite disturbing. When peeling away the underpinnings of the Governor's popularity, the fact emerges that Arnold is again playing his well-honed game of smoke and mirrors and our voters are apparently buying it hook, line and sinker.

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Liveblogging TALC

March 24, 2007

I'm at the High Speed Rail session at the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition conference in Oakland today, where my laptop just stepped up to play this great video that the High Speed Rail Authority has put together:

This is a great conference - almost 400 people, and with a strong social justice focus along with the expected environmental one. This is the kind of citizen-led event that flies right in the face of the "California is ungovernable" argument.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

The Oilies are at it again

March 09, 2007

Is it any surprise to those of us who follow the machinations of the oil industry that they are recording record profits here in California by gouging us at the pump by way of their refinery prices? Shouldn't be but on the other hand, it has been almost impossible to regulate how these profit hungry, pollution specialist mega-corporations do business. Blame it on the "market-based" system that the Free Marketeers hold so sacrosanct. Nothing should interfere with the market's supply and demand approach to all economic decisions. Although the industry has not yet been found to have violated any laws against colluding to fix prices, the state's Attorney General', Jerry Brown has said the investigation of refiners enormous profit-spike from last year (begun by then AG Bill Lockyer) continues.

So much of their machinations are astonishingly similar to those of the energy companies back in 2000 during our energy crisis in California. Facilities going down for unscheduled and "unexpected" repairs. While always a possibility, it was curious then that when regulators attempted to investigate, they were refused admission to the production facilities or delayed entry for up to nine hours before being allowed in. In the gas refining business, we don't even have the authority by law to conduct such inquiries.

MORE »

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

Friday cat blogging

March 10, 2006

Oscar demonstrates how progressive Californians will react if Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Republicans manage to push through a bond proposal that will increase urban sprawl and do little to help working families struggling to find affordable housing.

If you haven't done so yet, send a letter to the Governor and your legislative leaders now, urging them to pass the right kind of bond package!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Pragmatic progressivism, illustrated

March 09, 2006

This week's Bay Guardian provides a textbook definition of the difference between pragmatic progressives and old-line liberals. Here's SFBG editor Bruce Brugman's approach to solving the local housing crunch...

"Only rent control - strong rent control - can keep apartments affordable in this market."

As useless as conservative market-fundamentalist based arugments against rent control are, there are other arguments that do make some degree of sense. Rent control does tend to deflect the market in some unpleasant ways, such as biasing the market strongly against new and young residents (Mr Brugman would see this as a benefit, unfortunately), discouraging improvements to properties and focusing landlord's energies on exactly the people who need the most protection.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research association ED Gabriel Metcalf gives the perfect, thoughtful response. Mr Brugman sidestepped responding to Mr Metcalf's primary solution, which is increasing strengthening the currently feeble inclusionary housing ordinance. I'm tempted to excerpt a huge chunk of it here, but the whole thing is good, so go read it. A moratorium would make things worse and inclusionary housing works because it aligns the power with the market with answering a very real need. SFBG: old school liberal. SPUR: pragmatic progressive.

Mr Brugman mentions but skips right over the interesting part, which is that demand for San Francisco property is basically infinite. That's an awfully interesting observation if you think about it! The reason why it's true is that our society hasn't generated built environments that support the kind of neighborhoods and sense of community available in San Francisco since World War II. Pragmatic progressivism is about curing these difficult, root problems, not applying band-aids and quick fixes.

Mr Brugman's thinking is a good example of how trying to dice an environmental problem into little pieces to solve it is a failed strategy. The idea of "preserving" San Francisco under a bell jar without looking at the broader, statewide issues and the real effect these efforts have on people just doesn't make sense. Apparently I'm going to have to quote John Muir on here until I'm blue in the face: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." The only real, long-term solution is that we have to build more cities.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Crunchy cons

March 05, 2006

This morning's opposition research turned up something interestingly nonsensical: the Crunch Cons weblog over at the National Review Online. They really do have the big tent dialed; they apparently have no problems making room in the movement for people whose principles are completely and 180 degrees at odds. The weblog is annoying - it's a kind of writing I see a lot on NRO's site, these mostly self-referential discussions between three or four people that never seem to go anywhere, and are mostly disconnected from any recognizeable version of reality. Maybe they don't realize how hostile to new readers that style is. Of course, there are no comments.

I was thinking of responding point by point to the crunchy con manifesto, but I'm not sure it's worth it. There are some things to agree with, of course: if these ideas were to somehow gain traction, maybe there will be some common ground on real conservation and pro-family policies, not "voluntary compliance" and the hatred strewn garbage that the James Dobsons of the world spew and label family values.

But one problematic angle with it is the overall focus on culture. It's easy to try to move the focus away from economics if you're economically privileged, but go back and look at some pictures from Katrina or Sudan and tell me again how we still don't have political or economic issues. And given that these people are ostensibly conservatives, one has to wonder what they propose as cultural remedies. Book burnings? Edicts against degenerate art? Lots of fingerwagging and sermonizing? The mind boggles.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (1)

Help fix the Gov.'s bond proposal

March 01, 2006

California's elected leaders are currently considering multi-billion-dollar bond proposals to invest in our state's infrastructure.

A growing coalition of more than 43 environmental, social justice and public-health groups, led by the Planning and Conservation League, is urging Gov. Schwarzenegger and members of the Legislature to adopt a set of principles that will guide decision-making so that the right kind of bond package is passed.

As constituents, you can help by making it clear to the Governor and your legislative leaders that you agree with this approach and urge them to sign on to the 10-Point Program that has been put forth by this environmental coalition. Send a letter to your elected leaders today!

TAKE ACTION NOW »

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Here's the beef.

February 17, 2006

There's been some very real danger that the June Democratic primary for Governor race was going to turn into a mud fest. Comments from both campaigns, bolstered in the press, seemed to indicate that they were going to try to make it about irrelevancies like personality, rather than ideas.

But today there is some excellent news on this front: Phil Angelides' campaign took a big step today in moving things away from that direction by releasing a bold vision for where this state can go, including a twenty-five percent reduction in gasoline consumption over ten years. After the state Democratic Party convention last year, I was thinking that someone running for Governor should run on energy independence, not just as an environmental issue but as a matter of national security. Just like this:

President Bush and the Republican Congress remain locked in denial about the security and environmental risks of our reliance on oil and about global warming. They have refused to raise vehicle efficiency standards or vigorously pursue clean energy alternatives. Governor Schwarzenegger has offered rhetoric about greenhouse gas targets and hydrogen highways but no real plan or substantial change of direction. His massive infrastructure proposal, rather than encouraging smart growth and reducing oil use, fuels sprawl as usual by directing less than 5 percent of its proposed $100 billion in transportation funding to transit.

- http://angelides.com/enviros/clean-california.html

This is exciting stuff. President Bush's paucity of leadership on this issue and Governor Schwarzenneger's pavement-filled vision for the future of our state have never looked more lame. To our friends in the corporate media: this is exactly the kind of thing we want this campaign to be about. Please do not impose your "personality" driven storylines (or whatever it's going to be) on this race.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Too futuristic?

January 26, 2006

With a $200 Billion (mostly pavement, not a dime for transit) bond on the table, now the one silver lining - that we might get some rail out of this mess, too - appears to be fading:

"In a word of finite choices, when you combine what you know you need and haven't done with what the public wants done, high-speed rail sounds too futuristic and does not generate the kind of enthusiasm any number of other projects do," Perata said.

Note to Senator Perata: this is California, remember? You can not be "too futuristic" here, OK? We like the future, we want it to happen. We want it to be easier to get from LA to SF without having to deal with airports or be stuck in our cars for six hours! We want to be like other modern and industrialized countries! We don't want to do nothing but build roads!

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

technology and social goods

January 13, 2006

In general I'm a skeptical techno-utopianist. It was a phase I and a lot of other folks went through during the Clinton Boom, but I think most techies are over it now. In general there's been a fascinating shift from a general libertarian-bordering-on-anarchist gestalt to a center-left or very left approach. I still haven't seen any quantitative data on this, but watching the changes in the tenor of conversations on slashdot and other techie sites over the past few years illustrates it clearly.

Techies understand first-hand the need for society to invest in itself. Most of what we do every day simply wouldn't exist without that investment. They're still powerfully libertarian on social issues; they find the bizarre sexual- and bodily- control impulses (from the drug war to gay marriage to abortion) of the right utterly repulsive. They're pro-small business and largely in favor of public spending on everything from public transit to open source software.

I no longer personally believe that working in the technology industry alone is a sufficient positive contribution to society. I strongly believe that everyone in a democracy ought to be involved in the broader aspects of our society. No exceptions. But I do still believe in technology as a force for moving society forward at least occasionally.

The recent wide adoption of earth browsers seems to be a breakthrough for just that. Wednesday's story from the Chronicle is a good start:

But for environmentalists, Google Earth has turned out to be much more than another gee-whiz software development. Instead, it's starting to look like a killer app that could change the power balance between grassroots environmentalists and their adversaries.

There's a little techno-utopianism here, for sure. But if you've got a new-ish computer and haven't seen them, try both the outstanding Rachel Moore logging visualization and the Sierra Club ANWR one. Visualizations have a way of drawing people in and creating experiences, and as such they have a way of going beyond just the presentation of information. There's even a new partnership forming to examine exactly these issues.

The Chron article touches a bit on the use of this technology for planning. One of the numerous problems with what the Governor proposed this weeks is that building lots of roads generates exactly the wrong kind of growth. The kind of pavement based growth is exactly the kind of growth that many Californians spend enormous quantities of energy fighting in their local communities. Of the more than $200 billion he proposed, not a dime was for urban transit systems.

The positive alternative is smart growth and community-based planning. This is the new California Dream. We want to live in walkable, safe, efficient, participatory and transit-served communities. Visualizations like the kind that Google Earth provides can play a role in creating these communities. But we need forward-looking political leadership to get there, too.

I've put some further ruminations on this convergence of the research field I've worked in for most of my career and the political system in the extended entry. Click for more...

MORE »

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (2)

Save ANWR, and Harry's giving 'em hell

November 01, 2005

A momentary distraction from the very pressing needs of our campaign: the House is going to vote on ANWR next week, and the NRDC has come up with a great strategy to peel off some Republicans in strong environmentally aware districts. Give them a little love, because one of their targets is Dave Reichert, who won an open seat battle just outside of Seattle last year that I witnessed. It will most likely be be one of these miserable all night arm-twisting sessions, so turn the heat up on that guy now.

Too bad we can't clone Harry Reid, doing what he did to Senator Frist today (although in general I think Rep. Pelosi has been doing a good job keeping things together as best she can). Sen. Reid makes me proud to be a Democrat, and I am strongly in favor of his now quite clear intention to force the Republicans to bring the nuclear option over confirming Alito. It's time.

Enough national news for now - back to your regularly scheduled special election coverage.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

Cindy Tuck rejected by Senate

September 02, 2005

The oil and chemical industry lobbyist that Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to put in charge of the state's clean air program was soundly rejected by the Senate Thursday, a victory for environmental advocates and all state residents who care about the quality of the air we breathe.

Speak Out California played a role in that victory by sending more than 3,000 petition letters to decision-makers on the Senate Rules Committee and 37 Senators from throughout California. Sen. Debra Bowen's office said the grass-roots activism made a difference in the outcome.

We thank all of you for taking the time to be a part of this important fight, and for continuing to be active members of the California progressive community. Stay tuned for more ways to help effect positive change in our state!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Stop the foxes from guarding the henhouse

August 30, 2005

UPDATE, Sept. 1: Cindy Tuck, the oil and chemical industry lobbyist that Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to put in charge of the state's clean air program was soundly rejected by the Senate, a victory for environmental advocates and all state residents who care about the quality of the air we breathe.

Speak Out California played a role in that victory by sending more than 3,000 petition letters to decision-makers on the Senate Rules Committee and 37 Senators from throughout California. Sen. Debra Bowen's office said the grass-roots activism made a difference in the outcome. We thank all of you for taking the time to be a part of this important fight, and for continuing to be active members of the California progressive community.

*****

The Senate Rules Committee is set to vote Wednesday on whether to confirm Cindy Tuck, Gov. Schwarzenegger's choice for California Air Resources Board chair. Tuck is a longtime oil and chemical industry lobbyist who has spent her entire career fighting against the kinds of air quality protections that it would be her new responsibilty to oversee.

Take action now and tell the members of the Senate Rules Committee that when it comes to top environmental positions, Californians demand leaders whose interests are in protecting public health, not corporate wealth.

TAKE ACTION NOW »

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)

Where California needs to go

July 13, 2005

I saw this on the street the other day while walking to lunch. It might be implying secession, but I am interpreting it as an illustration of our current struggle to renew the progressive dream in California!

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)