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.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
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 ...
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 ...
Sunday, June 24, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, June 18, 2007
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
***
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
Friday, June 15, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
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...
Friday, June 8, 2007
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!
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]
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]
Monday, June 4, 2007
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 5th
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
Friday, June 1, 2007
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]
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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
