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.