Community Choice - what other choice is there?

This week was a very interesting one in terms of activity and dialogue around CCA. First, on Wednesday, the LCEA held their first Oakland CCA workshop, featuring Robert Freehling of Local Power, Jay Hermon of REC Solar and Kriss Worthington from City of Berkeley. We heard 3 good presentations from different viewpoints - environment / economic (Robert), industry / labor (Jay), and political (Kriss) - supporting CCA and urging us to work together to lobby local electeds to make sure it stays on the agenda. The energy in the room was great! Hopefully we will have a video to link to sometime in the next month showing some of the interviews the videographer did for us.

Also, this morning there was a meeting at Apollo Alliance, which I attended, where Robert again spoke in favor of CCA and was followed by Hunter Stern, business representative from IBEW (Electrical Workers) Local 1245, who spoke against it. The dialogue was at times very technical - which it sometimes needs to be, because CCA is complex - but at the same time showed clearly where views diverged. Basically, there is a fundamental mistrust by IBEW (and others) of CCA because of the perceived risk inherent in moving away from the monopolisitic, "stable" model that PG&E has been working under (Stern) to a more "deregulated" model like CCA where power contracting gets outsourced to an outside vendor (Freehling). What was left out of this discussion, in my opinion, is that the outsourced vendor can be "regulated" just like PG&E is, if you simply dictate they must provide a certain percentage of renewable power. Credit to Brian Beverige for bringing up this important point.

Finally, I picked up an article from the Associated Press concerning global warming and new predictions of sea level rise. The University of Arizona studied USGS maps and interviewed 2 dozen scientists to predict the exact effect of a sea level rise in America. They predicted different times - between 50 and 150 years - when global warming will cause sea level to rise 1 meter, threatening the entire coastal economy (think shipping), wetlands, freshwater, and ecosystems. Among other places, Kennebunkport, North Carolina's Outer Banks, and Jamestown would get washed away. This just underscores to me why we need to start "taking a few chances" now on plans like CCA that seem a little radical, but at least offer the opportunity to really blow the doors on the "old way of doing business" in terms of producing energy from fossil fuels.

Vermicomposting videos

I found a really cool video site on vermicomposting. It was co-produced by a guy who volunteered to capture video at a Sierra Club renewable energy event next week - Jay Dedman. Also I learned something - gotta give my worms some sand!

p.s. To run the video, I chose to use the "flash player" plug-in.

Documents on Community Choice Aggregation

In preparation for the upcoming workshop on September 26th about Community Choice Aggregation, I decided to post the draft studies from Navigant Consulting as well as my analysis of them (at least, those which I have had time to read). Here are the documents:

1. Base Case Feasibility Study Part 1, April 2005 (pages 1-70)
2. Base Case Feasibility Study Part 2, April 2005 (pages 71-142)
3. My analysis of the Base Case Feasibility Study (8 pages)
4. Draft Report - East Bay Cities CCA Business Plan, Nov. 2006 (85 pages)

I found it informative to go through the base case feasability study. It does take a lot of the guesswork out of this concept. One myth about CCA, that I realized is untrue, is that CCA is somehow about "privatization" of power. CCA is in fact the opposite: it is about taking authority away from investor-owned utilities. CCA gives power back to the cities, to determine their own energy future, to contract for energy generation, and to structure policy and issue bonding so that small, independent providers are able to "get in the game," by providing energy from renewable sources. In other words, it's a means to create a demand for wind turbines, solar voltaic energy, and other renewable sources.

Alameda Magazine article on worm composting

My friend Wanda Hennig recently contributed an article to Alameda Magazine on worm composting in the area. See if you can find my name in there ....

September NAC Group Events

OK, I know I've been kinda lazy not posting anything here for a month. Somebody asked me for vacation pictures. Check them here on flickr. I will maybe write a little diary of the trip sometime later (would appreciate if you emailed me and asked :-) )

In any case, I have another agenda, and that is keeping the local Sierra Club group calendar! Yay! Here are the events coming up in September.

Sat., September 8th, 10-5 - Grassroots Organizing Workshop
Sierra Club Bay Chapter Office - 2530 San Pablo Avenue , Suite I, Berkeley
Learn more about grassroots organizing. Sessions include: How to Lobby Effectively, Working with the Media, Campaigning to Elect Environmentalists, How to Build an Effective Community Organization, Why you Should Run for City Council, and Becoming a Leader in the Sierra Club. Local elected Sierra Club leaders will be featured speakers. Contact : Anna Wagner, Chapter
Office, 848-0800 x307

Sunday, Sept. 9th, 9-4.30 – 33rd Annual, 2007 Solano Stroll: "Going Green -- It's Easy!"
Solano Ave., North Berkeley
You're invited to join Mayor Bates and the Berkeley Climate Action Team in the Solano Stroll theme parade. Walk with us! This year's theme is "Going Green--It's Easy." Join us as we march down the parade route under the Berkeley Climate Action banner. If you're interested in joining our group of paraders, send us an email at MeasureG at ci.berkeley.ca.us. Sierra Club will also be hosting a table along the route (various members of the NAC – come meet us!).

Friday, Sept. 14, 9-4 - "Coordinating Land Use and Transportation in Oakland"
Oakland City Hall
You are cordially invited to attend a charrette on Land Use and Transportation issues conducted by the citizen / activist members of the Oakland Oil Independence Task Force. Watch and listen to environmental heavyweights Richard Heinberg (author of "Power Down" and "Peak Everything"), Jane Seleznow (former Sierra Club Bay Chapter chair) Ian Kim ( Ella Baker Center ), and Richard Register (Eco-City Builders, Berkeley) give their input on solutions to solve our area's dependence on imported fossil energy. Also, planners from the city of Oakland , AC Transit, and BART are expected to attend. For more information on this event, call or email Alice Glasner, Legislative Analyst, Public Works Committee, Oakland City Council at 510.238.4991. The agenda will be available soon. For more information about the Task Force, please visit: http://www.oaklandnet.com/Oil/default.html.

Wed., Sept. 19 - 6:30 - 9 p.m. - A Forum on the Health of the San Francisco Bay
Rosa Parks Elementary School - 920 Allston Way , Berkeley
Hosted by Loni Hancock. Around the San Francisco Bay , three pieces of litter line every foot of local creeks and streams. Thousands of animals are entangled in trash each year. In parts of the Pacific Ocean , plastic outnumbers plankton six to one. The problems are powerful, but so are the solutions. Come learn about legislation and other steps being taken to protect and restore the Bay and how you can get involved in the conservation effort.

Wed., Sept. 19 - 6 - 8:30pm - Bay Area Airports- Protect our Environment!
Joseph Bort Metrocenter - 101 8th Street , Oakland (near Lake Merritt BART).
In response to growing air travel and delays at the Bay Area's three primary airports ( San Francisco , Oakland and San Jose ), a multiagency panel reviewed a range of strategies to increase overall runway capacity. The new plan, called the "Regional Airport System Plan," updates the Airport Element of MTC's Regional Transportation Plan and will be used by the BCDC in considering possible proposals to extend existing runways or construct new runways in the Bay. At this meeting, a presentation will be made, and public comment will be solicited. From the Sierra Club's perspective, we need to make sure that the Bay, wetlands, and air quality are protected with any proposed expansion of aviation in our region.

For more information on the Regional Airport System Plan update, please visit the following websites: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov ("RegionalAirport Planning"), http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/air_plan, or http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/rapc

Wed., Sept. 26th - 6.30 - 8.30 p.m. - Community Choice Energy Workshop
Bay Area Academy - 2201 Broadway, Oakland (22nd and Broadway)
Help support renewable energy! The Sierra Club is co-sponsoring an exciting workshop on the topic of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). This is an exciting plan for increasing the supply of renewable energy at the municipal level. At the workshop, you will learn how CCA works, and how you can make a difference helping to support efforts to implement CCA in the East Bay . For more information, please contact group chair Kent Lewandowski at kentlewan at yahoo do com or Anna Wagner at the Chapter Office. Please download the flyer here.

Bus Rapid Transit, redux

A few months ago, I blogged about the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal in the East Bay, and Sierra Club support for it. Today I went for the first time to a Berkeley planning commission meeting. Though the meeting focused on a bunch of different issues, most of the speakers had opinions on BRT. Most of them were opposed. The opposition was coming a lot from neighbors to Telegraph Ave. (living on Hillegrass Street). They are afraid, that people will drive around Telegraph, and cut through Hillegras when Telegraph gets more congested after a BRT lane is installed (question: how about some speed bumps?) It was an interesting meeting. I finally met a lot of the people I have been reading and hearing about for some months. This was good. I am always impressed (or ...?) in Berkeley, how many people will sacrifice an evening of their time, to speak out on an issue, that is not even going to be decided for months.

On the way home, I ate at my favorite "dive" on Telegraph, naan n curry. Then I took the bus home on Telegraph Ave. (I had to walk 1 mile from the No. Berkeley Sr. Ctr. to Telegraph, and then again 1 mile from 40th and Telegraph to my apartment in North Oakland). The bus was half full - it was the new "rapid." I had to wait about 20 minutes for it (at 9.30 p.m.) It was a pretty quick ride down Telegraph - though there was hardly any automobile traffic.

It is always sobering, to see the people that rely on AC Transit at night time (not the commuters like me). There were some people that obviously can't afford to drive. I agree with those, who argue that AC Transit should be trying to improve the frequency of service on all routes, not just on BRT. However, I believe that a large part of the BRT money is coming from sources, that would otherwise not be available for transit improvement. I need to check on this. Too bad, the governor is currently shifting money away from public transit.

Sierra Club Northern Alameda County Group events

Sunday's Sierra Club, No. Alameda County picnic is coming up soon! The time of the picnic, in case you have not heard, is 12-3 p.m., at Cesar Chavez Park in the Berkeley Marina. Details are posted online at the Bay Chapter website, www.sfbsc.org > calendar, for how to get there. This event does not require r.s.v.p., but as usual, we'd like to know how many people to expect. Please call Joanne at the Sierra Club Chapter office at 848-0800 x315, if you know you are interested, and haven't already notified her (also please let her know, if you want to help us set up!)

It should be a good event - we're expecting about 20 guests. Weather is predicted to be partly cloudy - high of 74 (but probably cooler at the marina). You will probably want to bring a sweater or light jacket.

Also, please make a note, that our regular conservation meeting will be Monday evening, 7/23 at 7 p.m. Among other things, we will be welcoming / hearing from new interested candidates for NAC Group executive committee, and discussing NAC group housing policy. An agenda packet will follow in the next few days (as soon as I get around to producing it).

Oil Independent Oakland Task Force

Oil Independent Oakland (OIO) By 2020 Task Force
Regular Meeting
Thursday, July 19, 2007, 6pm to 9pm
Hearing Room 1 – City Hall.
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Agenda can be viewed here.

Waste Management Lockout of Teamsters Local 70

OAKLAND, Calif., June 30 (PRNewswire) -- Negotiators for 500 Teamsters at Waste Management walked out of a futile round of negotiations with the company as the solid waste giant refused to honor its promise to not make any demands that diminish the current contract which expires Saturday, June 30, 2007.

In a letter dated July 17, 2001, Waste Management promised Teamsters Local 70 in Oakland, California that it would make no attempts to seek concessions from the 500 workers represented by the union in future negotiations. Despite this very clear and indisputable promise, the company has done nothing but make demands for takeaways in every negotiation session to date.

Waste Management locks out workers - Replacements will pick up trash, not recycling; no negotiations planned.

By Chris Metinko, MEDIANEWS STAFF Article Last Updated: 07/04/2007 02:54:13 AM PDT

East Bay garbage workers and Waste Management of Alameda County have no set plans to continue talks despite the company's lockout of the union's nearly 500 members late Monday.

The contract between the company and Teamsters Union Local 70 — which represents drivers and equipment operators — expired Sunday after what both called "fruitless" talks. On Monday, Waste Management locked out the union, and brought in more than 200 replacement workers.

Teamsters Local 70 Secretary-Treasurer Chuck Mack said members will not strike, but he called the lockout "irresponsible" and said members will picket at Waste Management facilities. "It's unfair to the workers and the people of Oakland, Hayward and the other areas we serve," Mack said Tuesday.
Monica Devincenzi, a Waste Management spokeswoman, said the company decided on the lockout because it needed to protect itself in case the union was planning a strike. Mack stressed the Local 70 picket lines are not a strike. The union had pledged not to strike during contract talks, he said. Representatives of two other unions at a press conference Tuesday, Machinists Local 1546 and WarehouseUnion Local 6, said they will honor Local70 picket lines, but Waste Management said everyone reported to work Tuesday.

Waste Management serves Albany, Emeryville, Oakland, Hayward, Newark, Livermore, the Castro Valley Sanitary District, the Oro Loma Sanitary District, parts of unincorporated Alameda County and San Ramon Advertisement in Contra Costa County. It has about 200,000 customers.

Waste Management said replacement workers are now collecting garbage in those communities but in most they aren't collecting recyclables.

Waste Management plans on normal trash collection Bay City News Service

Article Last Updated: 07/07/2007 06:00:21 PM PDT

Waste Management of Alameda County notified customers today that regular weekly trash collection will return on Monday, but union and worker representatives are doubtful that service will be business as usual.

Waste Management spokeswoman Monica Devincenzi reported today that an advertisement in the Oakland Tribune and pre-recorded phone messages notified customers today of the planned return of normal service.
Beginning Monday, Devincenzi said Waste Management is "going back to regular weekly trash collection, regular commercial trash collection (and) weekly residential yard waste for most communities." Devincenzi noted they will also pick up any extra trash that has accumulated.

But Chuck Mack, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 70, is unconvinced that Waste Management will be able to deliver on their promise. "They keep making these statements and we sit here scratching our heads because it's so far off from reality," Mack said today. "For them to suggest that garbage service is going to return to normal next week is stunning when you look at what's happened in their pick-up areas."

MY TAKE:
WMI is a for-profit, stockholder-driven waste hauling company with $3+ billion dollars in revenue and a recommended stock by Standard and Poor's. It earns money by contracting for trash removal, by manipulating landfill costs, and driving smaller competitors out of business. Despite being hugely profitable, this company is failing to live up to its promises to its workers, especially regarding healthcare benefits.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
WMI has a record of claiming to be environmentally friendly. However, documented actions and strategies of the company show it to be interested more in profit than in reducing or recycling waste. One of WMI's greatest lies is the claim that waste is "turned into power." They do this through incineration of garbage. This simply spews toxic chemicals over a greater distance than the original landfill.

Despite being 10 years old, the following site is useful as a counter to WMI (formerly WMX)'s promise of environmental stewardship:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4370

Also see the following more recent example of WMI's landfill politics in Wisconsin:
http://www.stopwmx.org/pheas.html

It's time to consider an alternative for Oakland!

Polystyrene Ban Enforcement

I wrote the City of Oakland regarding the polystyrene (styrofoam) ban enforcement. I have observed some restaurants not following the new rules. Of course, some of these restaurants are my favorite places to eat lunch. So I don't want to make too many enemies :-) Anyways, here is the answer I got:

*****
Citizens can call the Recycling Hotline at 510-238-SAVE (7283) to make a
report.

They should include the name of the restaurant, address, and the date of
their observation. It would also be helpful to note the type of container
where polystyrene was still being used. (i.e. hot drink, to-go clamshell,
soup container, etc.)

Recycling staff will contact the restaurant and follow up on the complaint.

Dave

David Finacom
Environmental Services Assistant
City of Oakland Public Works Agency
Environmental Services Division
(510) 238-7694 Fax: (510) 238-7286
dfinacom@oaklandnet.com
http://www.oaklandpw.com/

Meeting with Sandre Swanson re: SB 974 Port Container Fee Bill

Friday I gathered together with a diverse group of clean air advocates, including NRDC, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP), Pacific Institue, and others, to go meet Sandre Swanson and his staff to lobby him for support of SB 974, the Port Container Fee bill (SB referring to "Senate Bill" in the State of California). This bill was initially floated in 2005 I think, by Sen. Lowenthal, with the result that the governor vetoed it because he did not feel it was comprehensive enough (it did not include Port of Oakland). The Bill calls for levying $30 in fees on each container entering the ports of L.A., Long Beach, and Oakland. These are 3 of the top 5 most busy ports in the nation. (L.A. and Long Beach are 1 and 2, Oakland is 4, I read). So it will be hard for shipping companies to avoid paying this fee.

The bill analysis shows just who is on which side of the fence. Basically it's government + clean air activists + public health / non-profits vs. all manner of trade groups (including, all the major retailers and even Miller Brewing!). Yes, this will increase the cost of doing business in California. Yes, it is not "free trade". However, Port communities like West Oakland, and the neighborhoods near Long Beach, are bearing the brunt of the pollution from ships, trucks and rail. For example, I took a stroll with my girlfriend down to Jack London Square and smelled soot, as I watched a Chinese mega-container ship dock in the Port of Oakland, assisted by tugboats belching black smoke. Trade with China, which accounts for the majority of shipping, is increasing each year. The communities near these ports clearly need to be helped, and air quality concerns need to be attacked in as equitable a manner as possible. This version of the bill also requires that 50% of the revenue must be spent on pollution mitigation (basically, air quality improvement), and the other 50% on "congestion relief" - which can take many forms, including electrifying and more efficient rail connections at ports. The money is controlled by a special commission, the CTC (not sure at the moment what that body is - but it is NOT the Ports themselves).

So, the Ports will benefit from the container fee by improving their infrastructure and efficiency (hopefully), the community will benefit from cleaner air and better health, while the consumer out in Nevada, Illinois or Ohio will be asked to pay a few cents more for their hawaian t shirt, coffeemaker or computer made in China. Seems fair to me. The State Senator agreed, saying he'd support the bill.

Solar Power Discussion on NPR

I was listening to NPR this morning when I heard an interesting discussion of "net metering".... I guess out east there are ordinary commercial buildings like Walgreens' drugs being equipped with rooftop solar, and they are engaging in "net metering" ... "selling back to the utility at market rates" .... "this is bad for utilities, who want to buy wholesale" (i.e. the utility is subsidizing solar installations, I guess). Sounds like Sun Edison is engaged in a fight. A precursor of things to come here in California?

I then surfed to npr.org. I found the following. It is a good radio broadcast .... sort of a "feel good" talk by an industry proponent, but nevertheless, informative.

New Approaches Explored for Creating Solar Panels

Talk of the Nation, April 20, 2007 · How can the cost of solar energy be reduced? Chris Eberspacher, chief scientist for a Silicon Valley company called Nanosolar, talks about the work his company is doing to develop a product that would make solar cells much less expensive to manufacture and install.

A "rough" summary:
------------------------
1. 1:00 : Overall potential for solar power as a renewable source
2. 2:30 : Discussion of nano-solar technology - how it gets produced
3. 5:30 : How solar tech. can compete "head to head with grid electricity"
4. 6:00 : What Nanosolar is doing, including detailed discussion of nano-tech production
5. 9.00 Discussion of global solar energy market
6. 11:00 : cost of solar electricity to consumers
7. 11:45 : Brief discussion of compatibility of solar and ethanol
8. 12:45 : Discussion of future for nano-solar technology products ("it will supplant existing technology based on crystal and silicon")
9. 13:45 : Silicon Valley = "Solar Valley"?
10. 15.20 : State of California legislation that promotes or subsidizes solar (including, "net metering")
11. 16.40 : Problems distributing solar electricity across wide distances

Sounds like they didn't get any phone calls.... or maybe they just didn't broadcast them ...

Hike in Sunol

Saturday I took a hike in Sunol Regional Park together with some other people I know. I didn't feel physically that great (had a slight cold), but decided to go anyways. Basically I was talked into it ... and organizing this hike was actually my idea in the first place! And then my boss showed up at the trailhead. That would have been bad, for me to miss! So it was all good....

Anyways, following our trip leader Bob Solotar, our group of 6 set out from the Sunol visitor center in the afternoon at about 2.30 p.m. on a sunny afternoon (we were hiking on the right side of the map showing Mission Peak and Sunol). Temps were around 80 degrees - not bad for a late June day down in the south bay (it sometimes gets up to 100 there I guess). The landscape was hilly and dry - basically, like the rest of the eastbay parks (except for the redwood groves found in Redwood Park and in Marin County.) Bob S. did us all a great service by pointing out all the different forms of poison oak. I had no idea it grew as a vine, a bush, and even a small tree! We saw poison oak all over - LOTS of it - at ankle level, hip level, and face level. Due to Bob's experience and our fear of contact (I actually already had the pleasure, even had to get cortisone shots), no one (to my knowlege) was exposed. If you want to read more about the plant, I include the following link. (note, how the plant toxin is spread through the branches and shafts - not through the leaves. Bob pointed this out to us, also).

The highlight of the hike for me was the view from the top of Grande Vista trail, with is in the upper region of the park. From there we could look at the surrounding ridges and hills (including to Mount Diablo). None of us were sure, but we thought the ridge directly to the north was Apperson Ridge - where De Silva Gates is planning to blast apart the top of the ridge for gravel mining (in order to supply road building material that will be needed as part of the 1B transportation bond passed by California voters last fall).

The second most interesting thing we saw was our first rattlesnake. All 12 inches of it! It was just a "baby." Fascinating creature.

All in all, a fine hike. I will try to give people more notice about the next one. Hopefully we'll have a bigger crowd.

Email from Sierra Club re: Biofuels

A few months ago I reported in this blog about a biofuels forum hosted by the Sierra Club in Berkeley. I finally got around to composing an email to several Sierra Club national energy policy people regarding the club's policy on biofuels, and recently got a reply. Read on:

***
Hi Kent,

Thanks so much for all of your work and for your question. There is an important distinction between cellulosic ethanols and ethanol produced from agricultural products such as corn. The Sierra Club does not support agricultural-based ethanols for the reasons you mentioned below; mainly because they upset the food markets, invade otherwise untouched land, and generate significant amounts of carbon dioxide to convert the corn (or other product) into ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol is different because you can convert sources of energy (such as switch grass) that already exist in abundance. In other words, you do not have to create extensive farm land and drastically increase the price of products such as corn and sugar.

In short, the energy policy's description of biofuels derived from starch and sugar sources is quite negative, expressing many concerns about the harmful effects of these biomass sources, while not explicitly using the word "oppose." If produced properly, biofuels hold much promise and could be part of the solution to curb global warming. This is the reason we do not have a blanket opposition to ethanols - as usual, the devil's in the details.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Katie

Katie McLoughlin
Program Assistant
Sierra Club Global Warming and Energy Program
408 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(T) 202.675.2386
(F) 202.547.6009

To: katie mcloughlin at sierraclub dot org
Subject: seeking guidance on Sierra Club Biofuels policy

Dear Katie,

A few months ago, our local group in Oakland and Berkeley hosted a forum on biofuels in conjunction with other public discussions about the recent UC-Berkeley agreement to accept a 10 year, $500 million grant from British Petroleum / BP to research cellulosic ethanols. I have attached the program handout, which includes highlights of the Club's biofuels policy (which I believe came from the clubhouse site).

During and after the event, I have been asked numerous times why the Club doesn't oppose biofuels on the basis that it raises global food prices (e.g. doubling of the price of corn last 12 months), and is simply a substitute for other, carbon-based fuels that contribute to global warming? I have no good response, other than that it seems to be a good thing to reduce our dependency on foreign oil (which is not an environmental issue, really).

What is the response of the Sierra CLub Global Warming and Energy Program? Or other Sierra Club Global Warming advocates at the national level?

Sincerely,

Kent Lewandowski

Seeking Quality Rummage

Ny church St. Paul's Episcopal near Lake Merritt is seeking some donated rummage items they can sell in July at their annual rummage sale. I am on the "rummage team". If you all have been thinking to clean out your closets, basements or garages, and wish to make a tax-deductible donation, please let me know.

Favorite items are quality used clothing (especially CHILDREN'S CLOTHING), toys, jewelry, non-bulky furniture (i.e. no queen sized beds), home and kitchen supplies, and sporting goods. What we can't sell, we have to pay to get rid of, so we are trying to gather mainly items that will "definitely sell." PLEASE BRING CLEAN ITEMS ONLY. We don't have the resources to clean dirty clothes and materials for you!

The best thing for us would be for you to come with your materials to drop off the weekend of July 7 and 8 at the Casa Romana (one building up the hill from the church at 116 Montecito (St. Paul's school). Signs will be posted for drop off.

p.s. thanks to all who have shown interest so far.

Benefit Concert for Save the Oaks Friday 6/22

I won't be at this event next Fri. but thought I'd announce it on behalf of those who are trying to protect the Oak Trees in Berkeley.

COUNTRY JOE TO SING AT OAKS BENEFIT June 22

Mark your calendar for Friday, June 22. That’s when Country Joe McDonald will perform his Tribute to Woody Guthrie in a major fundraiser for the Save the Oaks Campaign.

Box office/will-call opens on June 22 at 7 p.m. at 1924 Cedar St. (at Bonita). Doors open at 7:30. If you have questions, call 510-841-3493.

Don't miss this opportunity to participate in a great show while making a significant contribution towards saving the Memorial Oak Grove!

http://www.saveoaks.com/SaveOaks/Main.html

Botnet article

OK, this has nothing to do with environmental politics. But, if you're a heavy computer user like me, you might want to read the following article on "Botnet Hackers." It's an intriguiging way to commit cybercrime, by letting unsuspecting, defenseless computers do your dirty work for you. The ultimate version of an organic virus, you could say. Tracking down viruses on your computer is time-consuming. My sympathies if you're afflicted. There are some free ways to try to deal with them, which I tried to document. But, in the end, I find that a $30 antivirus program is the easiest way to go...

Rallly for "Green Collar Jobs" Tues. morning at Oakland City Hall

Rally for "Green Collar Jobs"

Tuesday, June 12th at 10 am at Oakland City Hall, Ella Baker Center is organizing a rally at the steps of City Hall, prior to an Oakland Public Works Committee hearing discussing the budget that will fund training and incentives for creation of "Green Collar Jobs" - including discussion of CCA. Contact me or Ian Kim from EBC if you want to show up and need directions.

***
update (6/13/07): I attended the rally and the subsequent hearing at Oakland Public Works Committee yesterday in City Hall. It was really impressive to see how the Ella Baker folks were able to rally so many activists together (they counted 150). I don't know if it's a Van Jones thing, or simply their email presence, or ? Our Sierra Club group could never garner that much enthusiasm. Anyways, we're completely different organizations. EBC seems to be advocating more for social (and environmental) justice, while S Club is the old-line traditional protector of wildlands. And that's fine.

In any case, the EBC rally, and other lobbying work of "green" advocates, seems to have had the desired effect: the committee voted to allocate most of the money from the Williams Reliant Energy settlement, to "green collar jobs" training programs, and renewable energy plans / subsidies (including CCA, which the Sierra Club is supporting). Hooray!

BRT - Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit, the new plan for providing dedicated-lane bussing from Berkely through Oakland to San Leandro, was a major topic at the last NAC meeting May 29th.

The next public hearings are in San Leandro Tue. June 12, in Fruitvale / Oakland Wed. June 13, and in Berkeley, Thursday, June 14th (all meetings start with open house / Q&A at 5.30 p.m., followed by the hearing at 7). More information available at actransit.org.

Sierra Club Resolution:
****
Whereas:

· The Sierra Club has long sought to reduce the environmental, social, and economic costs associated with overdependence on automobiles for transportation.

· Public transit, walking, and bicycling trips can often substitute for some automobile trips.

· AC Transit has proposed a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project along a corridor including Telegraph Avenue and International Boulevard extending between 15 and 17 miles between Berkeley and San Leandro. The Sierra Club strongly supports the project’s goals to: (1) improve transit service and better accommodate existing bus ridership; (2) increase transit ridership by providing a viable and competitive alternative to private automobile travel; (3) improve and maintain the efficiency of transit service delivery; and (4) support local and regional goals to enhance transit-oriented development.

· UC Berkeley is planning to expand its workforce by approximately 4,000 more employees and 4,000 more students by 2020, and ABAG predicts significant population growth in the Bay Area over the same time frame. As one mitigation of the environmental impact of its projected population growth, UC Berkeley stated in the final EIR of its 2020 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) that it will defer 500 of the 2,300 net new parking spaces proposed in the draft 2020 LRDP until after 2020 if a route is approved and construction begins on the AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit/Telegraph project by January 2010.

· The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s own LRDP projects the addition of 1,000 employees by 2025 who could also use BRT to get to work.

· In its Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, AC Transit predicts that the proposed service, which is to run on dedicated bus lanes (described in the EIR as “transitways”) along much of its length, will attract thousands of passengers every week who would otherwise drive.

· The BRT system stations will be designed to attract users making trips on foot within 1/4 mile of stations. Localities can work with AC Transit to locate stops where neighborhood service uses are already located or could be located, thus encouraging more non-automobile trips.

Therefore, be it resolved that:

· The Sierra Club strongly supports AC Transit’s overall objective of implementing high level bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements along an approximately 17-mile corridor connecting the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro.

· With regard to key points in the DEIR, the Sierra Club affirms that the fullest possible implementation of the transitways and proof of payment (prepayment of fares that will eliminate the need for drivers to collect fares at each bus stop) will be critically important to the project's success.

· In the interest of best serving the needs of the community and of merchants and neighbors along the proposed BRT route, the Sierra Club will continue to study the DEIR and observe the public review process in order to determine at a later date whether or not the Club should take a position on the specific route choices and alternatives and mitigations presented in the DEIR.

[Approved 8-0-0]

City of Berkeley Climate Action Events June 5th, 7th, 19th

Today I received the following email from Timothy Burroughs of the City of Berkeley:

Dear Friends:

This week we hold the first of a series of Berkeley climate action workshops hosted by city commissions (for a full schedule of upcoming events visit www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable):

Thursday, June 7th from 7 - 9pm
Community Environmental Advisory Commission Workshop: The Co-benefits of Climate Protection
2118 Milvia Street, 2nd floor conference room

The goal of this workshop is to learn from you about potential and existing emissions reduction strategies that will help us achieve our community-wide GHG emissions reduction target. At this event we'll also explore the multiple benefits of climate protection efforts (e.g., reduced energy costs, improved public health) beyond greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

In advance of this workshop, on Tuesday, June 5th at noon, we're holding an informal networking lunch over at Spud's Pizza. Come share your climate protection ideas and some pizza (though you have to buy your own pizza, we're sorry to say). All our welcome and the ideas you provide will be posted on our Measure G website and discussed at the upcoming workshops:

Informal Climate Action Working Group Lunch

Spud's Pizza

(www.spudspizza.net/)

3290 Adeline Street (at Alcatraz)

Tuesday, June 5^th

Noon - 1:15 p.m.

Please RSVP to measureg@ci.berkeley.ca.us so we can set up enough space for the lunch.

Finally, also save Tuesday, June 19th on your calendars for the following event:

Sustainability Programs that Reach Beyond the Choir: The Low Carbon Diet and Green Team Projects

Tuesday, June 19th, 7 - 8:30pm

Ecology Center (www.ecologycenter.org)

2530 San Pablo Ave. near Dwight Way

Free and open to all.

For more information: 510.558.0821 or susans@acterra.org

Background:
Susan Silber, Sustainable Living Programs Coordinator with Acterra, and environment consultant Bruce Riordan will be sharing information on two neighborhood-based climate protection efforts: The Low Carbon Diet and the Green Team. The goal of these projects is to organize groups of people (friends and neighbors, work colleagues, etc.) to work together on addressing our carbon footprint and protecting the environment.

Feel free to send any questions or comments to MeasureG@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Thanks!

Timothy Burroughs
Climate Action Coordinator
City of Berkeley
p 510.981.5437
tburroughs@ci.berkeley.ca.us

Northern Alameda County Group Resolutions, 5/29/07

For the purpose of public information, these are the resolutions passed in the most recent meeting of the Northern Alameda County Group, on 5/28/07:

1. BRT - see other post

--------------------------------------------------
2. Oak Knoll Open Space Preservation

Regarding the old Oak Knoll Naval Base, one of the largest remaining properties in the south Hills scheduled for leveling for residential development:

The Sierra Club strongly objects to attempts by the developer SunCal Properties, to change the designation of various hilltops and ridgelines on the northeast portion of their property (including the “Knoll”), from “open urban space” to the knoll “hillside.” In doing so, we align ourselves with the community and citizen groups seeking to protect this land as open space and native habitat. This kind of development of hilltops and ridgelines in the middle of a wooded area will cause lasting damage to plants and wildlife, cause scenic and aesthetic harm and destroy open space.

The Oak Knoll lands with greater than 30 percent slope are designated as “open space,” per the General Plan/OSCAR recommendations. The developer bought this land with these restrictions in place. The Sierra Club insists that this designation not be changed, and that the Oakland Planning Commission reject any plans submitted by the developer calling for demolition of vegetation / regarding of these hilltops and ridgelines.
[Approved 7-1-1]

--------------------------------------------------
3. MLK Regional Preserve

NACG joins with GGAS in its appeal against the approval of Port of Oakland and City of Oakland of truck transfer or shipping depots on the parking lot area next to Martin Luther King Regional Park (this is the same location as what was proposed for the Koi Nation casino). Sierra Club is already on record opposing development of this site due to impacts on the MLK Regional Park, and has included it in our priorities for acquisition under the AA Re-Enlistment.
[Approved 9-0-0]

4/26 Berkeley teach-in on bio-fuels

On Thursday I visited the beautiful University of California-Berkeley campus again to attend a "teach in". Not knowing what to expect, I arrived a little late and had to go sleuthing around for a way in at LeConte Hall (grid c5 in the map). I came via the faculty club, the so it was the back of the hall, which is locked in the evening.

The teach-in was very interesting. It was put together by a local activist group that call themselves the Green Century Institute. Contrary to my expectation, it was not a bunch of Berkeley types shouting "down with Big Oil!" Two of the speakers I'd previously met (Richard Register and John Harte). The others - Prof. Tad Patzek and a priest living in Brazil, gave very convincing arguments as to why biofuels is never going to be the answer to our energy needs.

First off, Prof. Patzek gave some basic arithmetic arguments pertaining to our energy consumption and the potential of biofuels. The overall potential of biofuels, even if we were to plant all the tillable acreage (farmland) available with the most productive biofuel plant (probably a variety of corn), would still only cover something like 30% of our current energy needs. Professor Harte made the point that solar arrays set up all over the west (for instance on the current weapons proving grounds owned by the government) would be able to fulfill our needs. Richard Register showed us photographs from his world travels including many innovative concepts for greening of cities. His basic point, though, and this is also a basic "Peak Oil" argument, is that our present suburban and car-based lifestyle is in for a deep shock at some point in the next 20-40 years. I agree with this argument.

Afterwards there were some students and activists who lined up at the mic to ask questions of the speakers. As usual, the "questions" (actually many were political statements) were more numerous than there was time to answer. Well that's no surprise.

Going forward I will edit this post to include links to audio and video fiiles of the speakers at the teach-in. Hopefully some of you are able to see it that way.

Glaciers and Ice Ages

Today's Chron features an article about mountain climbers' perspectives on global warming.

I recently took a natural history course at Merritt college that included a study of the last ice age during which the Great Lakes were formed in the midwestern U.S. This got me thinking of glaciers and ice ages. Some scientists point to recurring ice ages as an explanation of how global warming will eventually lead to the next "Ice Age". This process involves massive movement of water vapor from the equator to the poles and then freezing of this vapor in the form of new glaciers. But, the process takes place over thousands of years and is accompanied by massive shifts of climate. So I don't see it as any sign of hope.

For reference, I also dug up information on ice sheets on Wikipedia:

Antarctic Ice Sheet
30 million cubic km of ice. Around 90% of the fresh water on the Earth's surface is held in the ice sheet, an amount equivalent to 70 m of water in the world's oceans.

Greenland Ice Sheet
the second largest ice body in the world, after the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The thickness is generally more than 2 km (see picture) and over 3 km at its thickest point. The volume of ice is 2.85 million km3.
...
Recently, fears have grown that continued global warming will make the Greenland Ice Sheet cross a threshold where long-term melting of the ice sheet is inevitable. Climate models project that local warming in Greenland will exceed 3 degrees Celsius during this century. Ice sheet models project that such a warming would initiate the long-term melting of the ice sheet, leading to a complete melting of the ice sheet (over centuries), resulting in a global sea level rise of about seven meters [ACIA, 2004]. Such a rise would inundate almost every major coastal city in the world. How fast the melt would eventually occur is a matter of discussion. In [IPCC, 2001], the expected 3 degrees warming at the end of the century would, if kept from rising further, result in about 1 meter sea level rise over the next millennium.

Summary of BioFuels Forum from 3/22 (from Steve Geller)

NOTES FROM SIERRA CLUB FORUM ON BP BIOFUELS PROJECT, HELD MARCH 22,
2007, AT THE HILLSIDE CLUB, BERKELEY, CA (by Steve Geller)

I attended the Sierra Club panel on the BP Biofuels project (EBI),
held on March 22 at the Hillside Club. This report summarizes what I
got out of it. Note that in places, I have adapted parts of Wikipedia
articles to explain technical terms.

Helen Burke, who organized the event, did her usual great job of
moderating, smoothly dealing with occasional outbursts of shouting by
some excitable Berkeleyans. The hall was full; many Berkeley
environmentalists were there, including Council Member Linda Maio and
"Ecocities" author Richard Register.

The event was presented as a forum, not a debate. The four speakers
each gave 10-minute presentations, then got 2 minutes each to comment
on others' remarks and expand. They then answered questions from the
audience, submitted on index cards.

The subject of the forum was "Is the BP Biofuels project good for
environment?"

BP will establish EBI - Energy Biosciences Institute at the UC
Berkeley campus. It will involve multiple research projects directed
toward ways of producing fuel from biomass, or biofuels. Examples of
biofuels today include biodiesel (e.g. from waste cooking oil) and
ethanol (e.g. from corn).

Paul Ludden, Dean of UCB's College of Natural Resources, appeared to
be enthusiastic about the project. Chris Somerville, professor of
biological sciences at Stanford, was also a proponent.

The opposition was represented by Ignacio Chapela, Assistant Professor
of microbiology at UCB. Chapela has been vocal about both the dangers
of the project to the environment and the political and economic
dangers of UCB getting into the project. John Harte, who teaches
environmental science at UCB, completed the panel. None of the UCB
people claimed to be involved in the negotiations for taking on the
EBI project, but Stanford's Dr. Somerville is said to be considered
for the post of EBI Director.

To start off, Dean Ludden gave us an overview. He said that EBI will
study ways to produce fuel from biomass and reduce the impact of such
processes on the environment. The goal is to "change our energy
paradigm in the US".

In 2005, BP Corporation (once called British Petroleum--now Beyond
Petroleum) requested proposals from about 5 big universities, for the
establishment of a research institute to study biofuels - production
of fuels from biomass sources.

In Sept 2006, the UC Berkeley chancellor asked for responses from
directors, deans and department chairs. Governor Schwartzenegger also
got involved at this point.

The result in February 2007 was an agreement in principle to establish
the Energy Biosciences Institute, but as of now (March 2007) the deal
has not been signed by all parties.

BP will provide $500 million over 10 years. The State of California
will contribute $40 million for a new building for the EBI project,
probably to be located up in Strawberry Canyon, near the Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) buildings. Steven Chu, Nobel laureate and
LBNL director, has already established the Helios project at LBNL. It
studies alternate fuels and renewable energy.

EBI will assemble expertise in Cellulosic Ethanol (not Corn Ethanol),
cell wall structure functions, plant genetic engineering,
photosynthetic microbes, and "syngas synthesis"?

Syngas (from synthesis gas) is the name for a gas mixture with varying
amounts of carbon monoxide and hydrogen which is generated by the
gasification of a carbon containing fuel. Syngas is involved in the
steam reforming of natural gas to produce the hydrogen used in fuel
cells.

We heard the term "Synthetic biology", which appears to refer to
genetically engineered plants and microbes. It seems that synthetic
plants are easier to break down than natural plants and synthetic
microbes are good a breaking down synthetic plants.

UC and LBNL already had a lot of the required expertise. To add
experience in agriculture, EBI will also include the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), which has 100 or more acres used
for plant studies, as opposed to the one acre at Berkeley. Nobody
mentioned why UC Davis wasn't selected.

Some people see the impetus for the EBI project coming from "end of
oil". If BP runs out of oil to sell, it may want to get into a
profitable position in other fuels. In 2002, at Stanford, Exxon-Mobil,
notorious for denial of global warming, funded the Global Climate and
Energy (GCEP) project. Exxon committed $100 million to GCEP over 10
years. Other funding partners include General Electric and
Schlumberger.

The GCEP project is not intended to explore climate science, but
rather focus on development of new energy technology and carbon
sequestration technology.

The EBI project will be structured as two separate divisions. One will
be a new subsidiary of BP, which will develop proprietary technology.
The other division will be the university components: UCB, LBNL and
UIUC. This division will be headed by a "governance board", consisting
of a UCB vice chancellor, the LBNL director, the UIUC chancellor and
two BP executives. The EBI director will report to the governance
board.

Six project directors will report to the EBI director. Under the
directors will be as many as 25 research leaders.

Intellectual property will stay where it is developed - with the BP
subsidiary or the universities. Any joint results will somehow be
split. Nothing was mentioned about how to resolve disputes.

Ludden noted that UCB's research is now funded about 60% by the US
Federal Government. He did not think the huge BP funding will do much
to change research direction at Berkeley.

Dr. Harte said that biofuels are really not good for the environment.
They are still carboniferous, and when burnt produce Carbon Dioxide.
We will be removing the CO2 sequestered in the soil. What we need is
biological processes which capture CO2, something like the work of
Nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

The land required for raising "energy crops" may be more than we can
spare from food agriculture. To replace US current gasoline use with
biofuel from energy crops, we'd need something like 5 Iowas. And
growing this stuff will require plenty of water, pesticides and
fertilizer, all of which impact the environment. Even now, we are
short of irrigation water.

On top of this, plant diseases like corn blight can wipe out an energy
crop, particularly if it is a single genetic strain. And there's
weather and fire. But we can hope that EBI research will find
solutions to all these problems.

Harte made another more subtle point: energy crops can change the
albedo of the Earth, which is reflectivity. This can have its own
greenhouse effect. Also, the energy not converted to electricity has
to go somewhere. Heat?

Harte noted that photovoltaics work even on bad agricultural land. We
can set up solar energy farms anywhere there's sun, such as in the
deserts. He got a cheer when he suggested the weapons proving
grounds.

The BP deal only covers successful research. If research determines
that some biofuel process is actually a danger to human beings, there
does not seem to be any provision for shutting down such a project.
EBI has no provision for concluding that anything might be a "bum
deal".

Dr. Somerville from Stanford spoke next. He warned us that there is no
single solution to the problem of energy needs; we need diversity; we
need to try out many different schemes. Biofuels aren't the only goal.
Solar energy is clean and more abundant than hydro, tides, wind or
geothermal. As an aside, he claimed that if we were to depend on
nuclear power, we'd have to build a new nuke plant every 2 days. Solar
voltaics on 5% of Earth's land would cover our energy requirements.
Right now, we're using 12% of the Earth for food production.

He noted that BP right now is a major producer of photovoltaics, and
is the world's largest producer of Hydrogen. Then we got to learn a
big new word: "Miscanthus". This is the wonder grass for biofuels.
It's related to sugar cane, but is not edible. There are 15 species.
One species, M. sinesnis, is cultivated in Japan as an ornamental
plant, known as susuki. One of the first EBI projects will be to use
genetic engineering to make a microbe which will digest Miscanthus.
Something close to this microbe already lives in the guts of
termites.

It can take as much as 15 years to develop a transgenic plant; it's
better to use one already available in the wild. That's not a goal of
EDI, but EDI will look into using transgenic microbes to digest
cellulose from wild plants like Miscanthus. The sterile hybrid between
M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus, called M. giganteus (also known as
or "E-grass"), has been in trial use in Europe as a biofuel, since the
early 1980s. It can grow to heights of more than 3.5 m in one growth
season. There's a field of it in Denmark which has been harvested for
30 years.

So America's amber waves of grain may be accompanied by giant
Miscanthus, growing high as an elephant's eye and providing our cars
with fuel. But first, we need basic research on perennials. We need to
find ways to make the conversion of biomass to fuels efficient.

Dr. Chapela spoke next. He gave us some funny quotes from our
Governor, which came from the German news magazine "Der Spiegel".
Governor S. can't hide behind German , because Chapela worked in
Switzerland and knows the language.

"Mine are not common Hummers - one is a biogas car."

"We are not against SUVs."

"Keep your luxury car."

Chapela said that what happens here in Berkeley will be copied in
other places. It's very important for Berkeley to do this research
right. He is bothered that the EBI project is focused on patents and
profits, not science. He noted that people are afraid of GMOs. Some of
Monsanto's stuff may cause damage to kidney or liver.

He gave us a new acronym -- Net Primary Productivity (NPP) is defined
as the net flux of carbon from the atmosphere into green plants per
unit time. NPP refers to a rate process, i.e., the amount of vegetable
matter produced (net primary production) per day, week, or year. We
want to promote NPP, to move Carbon from the atmosphere into the
ground. Clearing land for any kind of crops by burning plants
generates atmospheric CO2. He noted that the burning of forests in
Indonesia is generating a lot of CO2, enough to make Indonesia 3rd
offender in the world, after the US and China.

Chapela also gave us the term "Chimeric DNA". This is the genetic
material artificially developed by genetic engineering, usually by
mixing DNA from two or more different organisms. It is commercial
property, patentable. He's afraid the EBI project will put priority on
producing profit-making DNA, and may not be sufficiently concerned
with safety. He also said that if we follow policies bad for humans,
think of how bad we'll be to non-human life.

Here are some samples from each panelist's 2-minute rebuttals.

Harte said that right now, about 5% of the Earth's land has been lost
to deforestation. Biofuels would require another 5%. We need a panel
of ecologists to review EBI research proposals. This is how the
National Science Foundation reviews grant proposals. We need to avoid
bias caused by potential big money.

Somerville said "This is not a steady-state world". Things are
changing. We have to deal with what's coming, not what is. Berkeley is
not going to decide what goes to market as a result of EBI research.
All industrial fermentation today makes use of GMO microbes.

Chapela said this is not just a research project. Social and economic
issues are involved. Miscanthus will pull out nutrients from the
soil.

Ludden said that UCB needs to have faculty who can evaluate technology
critically, and consider social impacts. The EBI project provides
overhead to the university - 52 cents of overhead for every dollar
granted.

The final part of the event was the question period. Helen Burke read
questions from index cards collected from the audience. Before getting
to the questions, she read a comment submitted earlier by Dr. Otto
Smith of UCB's Electrical Engineering Department. He pointed out that
biofuels are all carboniferous; they will generate CO2. What we really
need is carbon-free transportation, powered from the sun, wind and
water.

After the event, Smith, a distinguished white-haired gentleman, was
handing out literature and talking to people.

Chapela said that BP should pay a fine for trying to take over UC.
Somerville said there's no single solution; we need to put knowledge
up on the shelf. Harte responded to someone's worry about putting all
our research eggs in one basket by saying we should candle each egg
before putting it in the basket. Ludden said the EBI approach might
last 50 year, or maybe not. We have to try. This is a research
project.

Question -- Might large-scale production of biofuels effective export
resources sustainably? Somerville: We've been adding 3 billion people
every 50 years. That's not sustainable. But perennial crops might put
nutrients back into the land. Ludden: US farmers should stop
depressing food crop earnings in developing countries. They do this by
exporting US large-scale food production. If the US shifted a lot of
land to energy crops, we wouldn't have the surplus. Question -- What
about the Ecocity? (probably from Richard Register) Harte: That's part
of the solution. Global warming is going to change our lives. EBI
should do "thorough and unbiased" research. Chapela: EBI will not seek
any solutions which don't involve patents. BP wants to make money. In
this kind of thinking, Ecocities have to justify themselves by being
profitable.

Question -- Why is there no interest in energy conservation or
preserving wildlife habitat?

Chapela: LBNL has already spent the equivalent of the BP grant on
studies of energy conservation. We need to keep intellectual diversity
on campus. We need to promote "intellectual wildlife". When someone
asked about public input to decisions about EBI, Dean Ludden brusquely
remarked "this is not a plebiscite". There is no legal basis for
public participation; it's a business deal. The public can look at an
abridged version of the proposal on ebi.berkeley.edu (I tried it, and
it doesn't exist yet). When he said "it's a question of trust", he got
catcalls. In Berkeley, UC is not trusted to do right, and BP as a
global corporation is trusted far less.

There's an article in the latest Economist (March 24 2007, p. 9) which
suggests that BP might not be careful about safety. "BP was berated
for having a weak safety culture in the final report from America's
Chemical Safety Board into the blast at a Texas refinery in March 2005
that killed 15 workers and injured scores of others. The inquiry
concluded that the oil company paid more attention to cutting costs at
the facility than to the threat of an explosion." Chapela noted that
today, science and technology are regarded as equivalent. We do
science in order to generate technology. EBI has this mindset.

BioFuels forum, Brenneman Article

Last Tuesday our Sierra Club group held its forum on Biofuels. The program can be downloaded here (it includes the speakers' bios and club policy statement on biofuels). The event was a success, both in terms of people appearing to be genuinely grateful for us putting on the event, and in terms of the speakers remaining more or less respectful of eachother. Helen Burke, the person who organized and moderated the forum, did a great job. She has been active in Berkeley (environmental) politics for a long time and was able to pull in some high-powered speakers. Too bad we didn't have more people attending. We sent out an email to about 3,000 Sierra Club members in the Eastbay. About 135 people attended the event.

The most interesting discussion in my opinion focussed on the area of balancing food production vs. energy production. Professor Chapela had some very poignant slides depicting deforestation in Indonesia (as seen from google satellite), which he attributes to the growing of palm oil (I recommend reading the article on palm oil production in Mongabay.com). However, he did not effectively link the Indonesian deforestation problem to the attempts of the Berkeley EBI to develop "better" biofuels in North America from weeds like miscanthum (a relative to sugarcane). This weak argument trying to lump all biofuel production in the same "bad" bucket actually makes me less likely to oppose the EBI, because it is in my opinion not an honest argument. Someone as smart as Chapela (I do think he is smart) cannot really think that the EBI is trying to promote palm oil production in Indonesia. So I would regard that argument as quite sensationalistic.

Then, in the weekend Berkeley Daily Planet, Richard Brenneman has written yet another article looking at the links between some of the lead scientists involved in the UC Berkeley Energy Biosciences Institute and BP (the grant provider). His article appears well-researched and probably is the basis of a stronger argument against the EBI on ethical and conflict-of-interest grounds. Yet I'm still not sure if I can simply dismiss the EBI as a get-rich-quick scheme on the part of the University and people like Kiesling and Somerville. If those guys simply wanted to get rich, why would they bother putting themselves through all the public scrutiny which they surely must have expected when they signed on to the EBI idea?

So I am still unconvinced of arguments by either side that this institute at Berkeley is either "good" or "bad". The two things I am sure of are, (1) I would probably rather have the research occur in a semi-public environment like the EBI at Cal, than completely in the private sector and (2) english, art, history and all other humanities professors and graduates are only going to be feeling more and more marginalized by industry deals like this...

Article on Biofuels Industry

An interesting article came over the AP Newswire today titled "Biofuels Spark Biotech Rally." It talks about the convergence of biotechnology and biofuels, which is apparently becoming somewhat of a trendy industry in the financial markets. Jay Kiesling from UC Berkeley is mentioned in it (he also spoke at the faculty forum on March 8).

Biofuel Forum Part 2, Cool Cities Rally

First : there will be a biofuels forum in Berkeley this Thursday. Our Sierra Club group (that is, Helen B.) is organizing the forum, which is basically going to be similar to the one from last week (see my previous blog post). Our forum will attempt to focus more on environmental issues and less on UC Berkeley politics. At least, we will try. Here is the email that got sent out to 3000 members last week:

"This month: Forum: "Is BP's biofuels project good for the environment?"
Sponsored by the Sierra Club Northern Alameda County Group

Thursday, March 22nd, 7:30 pm
Hillside Club
2286 Cedar St (corner of Spruce)
Berkeley
(suggested donation $5.00)

The Sierra Club will present a moderated forum featuring invited panelists on BP's proposed biofuels project – also known as the “Energy Biosciences Institute” (or EBI). A question and answer period will
follow presentations and discussion by the panelists. Panelists include:

- Prof. Paul Ludden, Dean, UC-Berkeley College of Natural Resources
- Prof. Chris Somerville, Stanford Univ. Biological Sciences Dept. and Director of the Carnegie Institute
- Assoc. Prof. Ignacio Chapela
- Prof. John Harte, Energy Resources Group, Ecosystem Sciences Division, UC-Berkeley.

Please come and support the Sierra Club and learn about an important and controversial research project on the future of energy.

For more information on the UC Berkeley project: http://www.ebiweb.org/
For the BP perspective on its research grant:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7018719
News article on the controversy:
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5431976

Kent Lewandowski, Chair
No. Alameda Group of the Sierra Club"

Note, this is the first time my name has shown up in about 3000 people's inboxes. I am kind of glad I don't live in my hometown anymore when this happens. I guess I still feel self-conscious about making my name so public. Don't ask me why.

Second : I set up a comment area that does not require you to have a google account. So please, leave your comments!

Third : I am supposed to be composing a response to a big Environmental Impact Review on the Lawrence Berkeley Labs "Long Range Development Plan". The EIR document streches into the 100s of pages. Anyone want to help me??? Please???

Fourth : Sunday (yesterday) I attended kind of an interesting event. I t was a cool cities rally in Redwood City with a friend. This was a Sierra Club -sponsored event featuring speakers on the topic of fighting climate change. Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope gave a talk during the event.

In case you were wondering, "Cool Cities" is a Club campaign to get elected officials to sign onto voluntary greenhouse gas reduction pledges for their city. The campaign is less about specific measures as it is about gathering committments.

In case you don't believe in climate change, please stop reading here.

So, ok, maybe you do believe in global warming. Well here is what the experts are saying : We're all going to die. OK, not quite. We have a 10 year "window of opportunity" in which to act And then we all will die. But I digress from yesterday's event. That is not what Carl Pope said. Or any of the other speakers. Nobody wants to hear environmentalists predict gloom and doom. Which is kind of what it's all about - right?

In any case, I found Carl to be a genuine optimist when it comes to dealing with global warming (which the Club has made its de facto top campaign priority, by focusing on energy and the cool cities campaign). He said during his talk, "I believe we're going to lick global warming". That's great spirit. I guess I have to believe it .... or else what?

On a note of humor: Carl walked out of the rally afterwards, and walked right out of the gate and down the sidewalk ... by himself. I thought, for sure, this busy world-travelling executive director of an organization with about 300,000 members (my best guess), would have at least a note-taker to drive him around. Maybe a chauffeur, too. But no - he takes his own ride! I was impressed. I always did admire that the Club ran on a low budget.

A webcast of yesterday's speeches is available at http://www.medianetcast.com/

Notes on the webcast:
- if you wait for about 3 minutes at the beginning, the show will start.
- there does not appear to be any possibility to speed up the playback (!)
- you need to install a little piece of software, "MediaNetcast", to get the webcast to play through either Windows Media Player, or possibly another media player (if you do not use windows).
- there are a few glitches in playback, but it seemed to be ok generally.
- Carl Pope's excellent speech on energy conservation is after about 30 or 45 minutes.

GMOs and transgenics

Watching the webcast from the Berkeley Energy Bioscience Institute (EBI) got me thinking about the effect of GMO (Genetically modified organisms) on the food system. Wikipedia has a good informational page about GMO plants. Basically, GMOs are plants modified in some slight way to express better qualities for growth, health, and crop production. Generally, a good thing, right? Except when the herbicide these plants are resistant for gets used year after year, on the same land. Then you get the good old evolutionary mutation thing happening ... and the organisms you are defending against (in this case, the corn boring beetle) becomes resistant to the herbicide. This reminds me of the debate over DDT application to combat malaria. Some people argue that using DDT on a widespread basis to control mosquitoes (which carry the malaria virus), will simply result in mosquitoes evolving with the genetic resistance to DDT.

A second little "problem" with GMO crops is that they are usually created so that the next generation of plants arising from the GMO seed has a 50% or lower yield to the originally sold seed. In other words, farmers are dependent on the GMO seed producer to buy new seed every year, if they want to raise a profitable crop.

Interestingly, a lot of the development of GMO seed appears to have happened right here in the Bay Area, where resistance to GMO seed is strongest. There is a long tradition of biotech development here. The companies Chiron, Genentech, and Tularik are all local to the Bay Area. Also, on the other side of the spectrum, the local anti-GMO movement is quite strong, too.

Finally, the movie "Future of Food", a documentary released in 2004, takes a strong stand against GMOs. This film was made by Jerry Garcia's widow, Deborah Koons Garcia. It stars local experts on the topic (including Ignacio Chapela, who speaks in the UC Berkeley faculty forum webcase I posted last week).

UC Berkeley Forum on Energy Bioscience Institute (Webcast)

UC Berkeley has put on its own faculty forum (today, March 8th) on the topic of the Energy Bioscience Institute. The webcast of the forum is available here :

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=19207&p=1&ipp=15&category=

Very interesting ... if you have an hour or more to listen in.

Speakers - 8-10 minutes each:
Beth Burnside - Prof. of Microbiology (strong "PRO")
Jay Kiesling - Director of Physical Biosciences Division, LBL (strong "PRO")
Ignacio Chapela - Assoc. Professor of ... (Microbiology?) (strong "CONTRA")
Someone from the business school analyzing BP (neutral)
Sean Carstruti, Director of CITRUS, Prof. of Electrical Engineering & BioEngineering (weak "PRO")
Robert Reich, Haas School of Business (neutral)
--
Stephen Chu ("PRO") - 1:00 hrs
Chancellor Birgeneau - 1:03 hrs

Followed by 1 hr of Q&A

(Altieri speaks at 1:14, Chu speaks again at 1:16)

SF Chron articles on new energy research + natural highlights of California

A few days ago, another article appeared in the SF Chronicle that discusses some of the more technical aspects of alternative energy production. I especially liked the graphic on the 37 foot wide "Dish concentrators" for generating solar energy out in the desert near Edwards Air Force Base. Also the discussion of the connection between lignin and cellulosic ethanol.

Here is the link. I reprinted the article in full below.

Also I noticed this article on "the best natural highlights in California" and thought it worth mentioning:

For the greatest of the truly great, stick to California

***
Unlocking clean, cheap energy
California scientists look to ethanol, solar arrays and 1800s engine for answers

California scientists are playing key roles in developing new energy technologies to counteract the effects of global warming.

Nanotech solar cells, the world's largest planned solar-electricity plant and new technologies for breeding biofuels like ethanol are among the brighter prospects on the energy research front in the Bay Area and the Golden State.

The basic technologies already exist. The main problems the scientists say they face are not scientific but rather are figuring out technical ways to refine and cheapen the technologies until they're reliable and cost-competitive with other energy sources.

And getting there, some scientists admit, could take years of research.

In the East Bay, scientists at U.S. Energy Department laboratories are exploring ways to use enzymes, microbes and even termites to generate more commercially appealing forms of biofuel such as ethanol.

At present, ethanol for transportation is produced from the starch in corn. Unfortunately, the ethanol-making process is so energy-intensive that the resulting ethanol yields only slightly more energy than was required to make it.

So scientists are seeking technical ways to produce ethanol more efficiently. They're doing this by investigating how to extract energy from the non-starch parts of plants, especially woody plants that are rich in cellulose, which is rich in the carbon- and hydrogen-based molecules that are useful for clean fuel. The goal is to develop an economically attractive form of auto fuel called cellulosic ethanol.

It won't be easy. Visionaries especially hope to use gene-modifying tricks to degrade cellulose more efficiently -- say, by creating genetically modified plant feedstocks, such as poplar trees, that would decompose more readily. However, Chris Somerville, a prominent Bay Area plant scientist and biofuel entrepreneur, said the history of genetic engineering of organisms indicates it could take at least a decade to invent and license commercially appealing genetic techniques for biofuel production.

"The biggest technical obstacle," said Prof. Charles E. Wyman of the Center for Environmental Research and Technology at UC Riverside, "is to overcome the natural resistance of cellulosic biomass to break down (and) release sugars," from which ethanol can be manufactured.

"The challenge is that no one wants to take the risk of trying to commercialize the (cellulosic ethanol) technology for the first time as the process is capital-intensive," Wyman said. "Yet converting cellulosic biomass to fuels is virtually the only option we have for making sustainable liquid transportation fuels with virtually no greenhouse gas emissions that can make a major impact on oil imports."

Over millions of years of evolution, the tougher parts of plants have developed dense, intertwined layers of molecules that resist being broken down by natural forces -- a phenomenon called "biomass recalcitrance." One of the toughest cellulose components is a substance called lignin, which gives plants their stiffness and ability to stand upright. If scientists can figure out how to break down lignin, they could more easily tap into the plant's energy riches -- just as kids can get at the ice cream if they figure out how to break into an ice cream store.

Scientists at the U.S. Energy Department's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek and the California Institute of Technology are seeking help from termites, nature's most proficient cellulose eater.

Termites contain hundreds of different types of enzymes that digest cellulose. If researchers can figure out which enzymes are the most efficient cellulose-destroyers, they might be able to extract them from termites and inject them into the ethanol-production process to break down cellulose.

Phil Hugenholtz, a microbial ecologist at the Walnut Creek lab, said some experts suspect the enzymes won't be nearly as effective outside of the termites' bodies, just as a carburetor is useless outside of a car.

"We'll find out in the next couple of years," he said.

Right now, ethanol research is getting the bulk of media coverage, but research persists on longer-established alternate energy technologies.

At Nanosolar Inc. in Palo Alto and at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, scientists are figuring out ways to extract new energy from the sun by developing nanotech and ultra-lightweight solar-electric cells. Existing solar-electric technology relies mainly on cells made of silicon, but they've become the Model Ts of solar power, generating too little energy to be attractive for many of the more energy-intensive uses, such as powering entire cities.

The problem is figuring out how to beat more electricity out of solar-electric cells.

Normally, when a solar cell is hit by a particle of light known as a photon, the cell emits a single electron or negatively charged particle. However, scientists have found that when they fire a photon at an extremely tiny semiconductor called a nanocrystal (just a few millionths of a meter wide), it can emit far more energy -- up to seven electrons at once.

The effect, known as carrier multiplication, has stirred debate among physicists, who disagree on its cause. Some think it can be explained in terms of known physics, while others think new scientific theories will be needed to explain it.

"We have to make (solar) cells much more cheaply and with higher efficiencies than silicon cells," and nanotech cells offer one way to do that, said Victor Klimov, a physical chemist and team leader at the Los Alamos lab. He thinks nanocrystal solar cells made from lead, cadmium, selenium or other substances might eventually generate more than 40 percent more electricity than existing silicon solar cells.

But there's a catch: For now, the electrons can't escape from the nanocrystal that traps them, thus preventing the electricity from being funneled into a power grid. Some researchers are developing microscopic wires that, they hope, will solve the problem.

Meanwhile, Nanosolar is developing new "thin film" solar cells that are one-100th the thickness of ordinary cells, although they can generate about the same amount of electricity.

But there are challenges, said Martin Roscheisen, the company's chief executive officer.

"The amount of capital involved is quite high, (and) it's a matter of getting the details right, (of) getting (production up) to high yield fast," he said. He expects the company's first solar-electric panels to roll off the assembly line at its San Jose plant some time later this year.

Perhaps the most spectacular near-term development in solar power will be the opening of the world's biggest solar-electric plant sometime in 2009 on 4,500 acres of the Mojave Desert near Victorville in San Bernardino County. Approved for construction in 2005 by the California Energy Commission, the plant weds 19th century engine technology and solar power to today's electric grid.

An array of 20,000 37-foot-wide reflective dishes will reflect sunlight onto engines that contain hydrogen gas. The heat will make the gas expand, which, in turn, will drive a piston, crank shaft and drive shaft assembly connected to a generator that produces electricity. It's expected to generate at least 500 megawatts, enough to power 300,000 homes.

It's an example of how sometimes, the oldest is best, for the Stirling engine is an update of an engine technology as ancient as the Industrial Revolution.

"The Stirling engine was invented back in the early 1800s (by) a Scottish minister and inventor," said Bruce Osborn, chief executive officer of a Phoenix company, Stirling Energy Systems, which is building the plant for Southern California Edison. "It's a very simple, very elegant, very efficient system."

E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.
***

Ethanol and "New Fuels"

1. What is the problem with global warming? Well, if you're an Inuit, you might need an air conditioner, for starters. (Reuters, March 4, 2007)

2. Bush Seeks Ethanol Alliance With Brazil (AP News, March 4, 2007):

3. But - Is ethanol really the answer? (USA Today, Feb 1, 2006)

The following 2 paragraphs are interesting to note:

"Ethanol yields roughly 26% more energy than it takes to produce it, according to a just-published study by the University of California at Berkeley. That's because corn grows using free sunlight and because farming has gotten very efficient. Gasoline provides only about 84% of the energy required to produce it, the study says.

In fact, a wholesale switch to E85 and other fuels made largely from plants instead of petroleum is a key, early step in a program that could eliminate U.S. gasoline consumption by 2050, according to Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council."

4. Finally, to answer the same question: Berkeley Daily Planet article on protestors against the Berkeley BioScience Institute $500 million dollar grant from British Petroleum (Berkeley Daily Planet, March 2, 2007)

***** Useful Info *******

Ethanol: Alcohol made from plants, usually corn in the USA. It's used in alcoholic beverages and is blended with gasoline as fuel for cars and trucks.

Gasohol: Common name for fuel that's 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline. It's widely available and can be used by most vehicles.

E85: Fuel that's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. It's available mainly in the Midwest. Only specially equipped vehicles - called flexible-fuel vehicles, or FFVs - can use E85.

Where to find E85
For locations of E85 fuel stations: www.e85fuel.com

Welcome

Hi and welcome to my new blog on environmental news in the East Bay. I decided to start this blog because I think several people are tired of me emailing them about the environment. I know what a hassle it is when "friends" take advantage of the fact that they have your email address to send you stuff. I don't really mind it because I'm used to it. But, I suppose some people get annoyed. Also I formerly posted environmental stuff in my personal blog (kentlewan.blogspot.com) and I think this was starting to annoy some of my friends who don't share my concern / enthusiasm for the environment. So, I am starting this blog, with the purpose of having a once-a-week (more or less) update on local environmental news and controversies for any and all to read. Hopefully I get some subscribers.

There seems to be a lot happening in the Eastbay right now, with the Cal BioScience institute, Port of Oakland vs. all its neighbors, and global warming action events all happening simultaneously. I will try to provide a quick and easy-to-read update on the latest trends + events. Thanks for reading-

Kent