The Treeblogger

Perspective on Perceptions of Environmentalism

2009-04-22T14:56:00.000-07:00

Check out this short piece by Ahmina James, a Berkeley High senior, on KQED's Perspectives series. 
She discusses the problem that many people see environmentalism as a game played only by middle-aged and highly educated white men.

Schwarzenegger Declares Drought Emergency

2009-03-02T06:21:00.001-08:00

Last Friday, Governor Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought emergency. Despite this recent spate of rain, Schwarzenegger said that California is facing its third consecutive year of drought and emphasized the possibility that the drought will continue for years into the future. In his declaration, Schwarzenegger urged all urban water users to reduce consumption by 20 percent and instructed the state Department of Water Resources to assist people affected by the drought, expedite water transfers and take various other actions. In addition, the emergency declaration paves the way for state-mandated cutbacks on water supply allocations and for prioritization of urban over agricultural water rights generally and of urban over agricultural users in State Water Project deliveries. Schwarzenegger's action will also make it easier for water suppliers to declare that local water shortages exist within their service districts, allowing them to regulate water consumption and restrict delivery, including the denial of applications for new or additional service connections.

Schwarzenegger's action was a necessary one, even if it did come a tad late. And it is encouraging that the Governor still made the emergency declaration despite the recent glut of rain and emphasized the potentially very long-term nature of this and future droughts. Nonetheless, I have my doubts that water suppliers and the state government will take any significant strides to reform California's water rights, water supply planning and land use planning schemes without continued drought for a few more years to come. Thus, while I personally love rain and deplore the dire effects of drought on people and the environment, I am more than a little worried that this current rain and any significant amount of future rain will cause water suppliers, local governments and the state to lapse back into "everything is fine" mode, continue allowing our state to grow prodigiously and fail to make the necessary structural changes to better plan for and cope with future droughts.

Politicians often lack the foresight or desire to champion precautionary measures to protect against uncertain or temporally distant harms; they instead tend to react to crises as they happen. With drought, it is no different. However, with drought in the American West, the consequences of failing to act preemptively can be particularly disastrous. The West has a history of tremendously long droughts with penchants for wiping out entire civilizations, such as the Hohokam people of the Southwest. The longer we wait to act and the more California's population and water demands grow, the harder it is going to be to cope with drought in the future and the greater the impacts on our people (particularly those with fewer financial resources) and environment will be.

Zap!

2009-02-26T16:16:00.000-08:00

I owe a longer post, but in the meantime please enjoy nature's continual ability to be just smashing.

Make Your Own Bike Lane?

2009-02-13T11:52:00.000-08:00

I often find myself lamenting the fact that there are not more dedicated bike lanes in U.S. However, instead of waiting around for our lobbying efforts to succeed in getting cities to create more bike lanes, we may soon be able to take our own bike lanes with us wherever we go - at least at night. A couple innovators at Altitute, Inc. have come up with a laser projection system that projects a virtual bike lane onto the pavement behind you. I don't think it's on the market yet, but I'd love to see these in action.
Check it out here.

Rub-a-dub-pthalate

2009-02-06T07:51:00.000-08:00

NRDC’s blog sparked some controversy yesterday over a recent New York decision interpreting the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) as banning all products with certain types of phthalates (a toxic plasticizer chemical), not just those manufactured after the law is set to take effect. NRDC had co-filed the complaint against the Consumer Product Safety Commission so naturally they were thrilled – the small business readers, not so much. They complained (reasonably) that these laws unfairly burdened smaller manufacturers and craftsmen, imposing a huge, possibly ruinous, costs for certification and testing. NRDC’s blogger responded by drawing a distinction and saying that the CPSC should be allowing exemptions for small business owners instead of dragging its feet in implementing the law.

Speaking of dragging their feet, the CPSC recently announced a delay in the part of the law that requires the testing and certification. Wait, what? So, what this means is that starting February 10, it’s illegal to sell goods that don’t comply with CPSIA standards for lead and pthalates? But there’s no way to enforce it? In short, yes. NRDC's blogger says so herself, but quietly, in the middle of the first post:

“That means that while it will be illegal to sell toys with these six phthalates, there is no verification that the toys on shelves will comply with law.”

So, the small business is touting this as a grassroots win (looks like the CPSC responded to something of an online media blitz) and NRDC is pleased with the at least symbolic victory that the law will be enforced.

Regulation is needed – the whole reason this law passed in 2008 (most sweeping product safety legislation in almost 20 years!) was because of the public outcry against all the toxic toys being recalled. But we should find a way to force large companies like Mattel to internalize the cost of outsourcing from countries like China with lax regulations. Actually, this wasn’t my idea: Boalt’s own Guzman and Bamberger wrote a CLR article on the topic.

Who Runs Gov

2009-01-28T11:01:00.000-08:00

Check out this new website: Who Runs Gov. It gives pretty detailed profiles for a ton of government officials and officials-in-waiting. Good place to go to get an overview of the new key players and issues surrounding them.

Proposed CEQA Exemption for green house gases

2009-01-26T23:41:00.000-08:00

Wait, isn’t California supposed to be setting the standard in climate change policy?

My sources indicate that the California AG's office is "very concerned" that the CEQA exemption listed below may pass as part of the current state budget negotiations. If it does so, green house gas emissions will not trigger the environmental impact report or mitigation requirements under CEQA and government projects will be able to contribute to climate change with impunity.

Get in touch with your state legislators and let them know they better not let this go through.

CEQA Greenhouse Gas Litigation Relief

Section 21097.5 of the Public Resources Code is added to read:
21097.5. (a) The failure to analyze adequately or to mitigate the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions in an environmental impact report, negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration or other document required pursuant to this division
for any proposed project does not create a cause of action for violation of this
division.
(b) This section shall apply retroactively to an environmental impact report,
negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or other document required pursuant to this division
that has not
become final.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until the final regulations specifying
greenhouse gas reduction measures adopted by the Air resources Board pursuant to
section 38562 of the Health and Safety Code become operative and as of that date is
repealed, unless a later enacted statute deletes or extends that date.

Obama on FOIA and open government

2009-01-26T22:43:00.000-08:00

What? Really? A President who thinks transparency and public accountability have a place in our democracy?

Assuming Obama follows through with promoting this policy and agencies respond in kind, this is a prime example of how drastically different the relationship between the executive branch and the public will be under the new administration.

"The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In
the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information
confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure,
because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract
fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal
interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to
serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should
act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are
servants of the public. All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of
disclosure. . ."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FreedomofInformationAct/

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of open-
ness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and
establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.
Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effec-
tiveness in Government."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

BART and Bicycles

2009-01-26T14:39:00.000-08:00

By taking BART instead of driving, travelers generally reduce the amount of air pollution their trips produce. However, this reduction in air pollution is greatly diminished when riders drive to the BART station. This is due to cold starting. For shorter trips (generally, less than 5-10 miles), cold starting can produce the majority of total trip hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions (which contribute to photochemical smog and numerous respiratory and circulatory problems). Thus, to make BART and other rail transit systems most effective for reducing air pollution, we need to maximize the percentage of riders accessing the systems by modes other than single-occupancy vehicle, e.g. bicycling.

In December, the Berkeley City Council took a step in the right direction by (finally) allocating funds for a new bicycle garage for BART riders. The garage will be located in a Shattuck Ave. storefront and will replace the current, and much smaller (~90 bike capacity), facility inside the Downtown Berkeley station. It will have a 250 bike capacity and come replete with a guard, mechanic services and potentially even a coffee shop - and the parking will remain free. If all goes well, the new facility could be opened as soon as next spring. Still, despite this localized progress, bicycle-BART integration is still not where it should be in order to maximize BART's potential to reduce air pollution.

We need to make it easier for bicyclists to use BART, particularly during those commute hours when bicycles are prohibited on most or all BART cars. The creation of a new, expanded capacity bike garage at the Downtown Berkeley station is a great step, but it will not make a huge impact on its own. Free parking garages (with ample capacity, unlike the current Berkeley facility) should be provided in or near all BART stations - and widely publicized. Currently, such facilities exist only at the Downtown Berkeley, Embarcadero and Fruitvale stations. BART and the cities housing BART stations should also secure funds to staff the garages for longer, and more continuous, hours. In addition, BART and the host cities should work together to provide networks of safe and accessible bike routes, boulevards, paths, etc. that lead to the stations. Planning for these improvements should start now.

You might say argue that these investments are too costly, especially in our current economic climate. However, these investments would create jobs (or at least create work for existing workers) and could be designed to become self-sufficient. For instance, the new Downtown Berkeley bike station might include a coffee shop whose revenues would be used to offset the garage's operating costs. Fees for bicycle maintenance provided at the bike stations could be similarly used. Another option would be to raise the car parking rates at BART stations, which would have the concomitant benefit of forcing drivers to internalize some of the negative externalities of driving.

In any case, regardless of cost, it is clear that for BART to reach its full potential (to reduce air pollution) we need to significantly reduce the number of riders who access BART stations via single-occupancy vehicles. Increasing access for bicyclists is one essential component of any such effort, alongside improvements in service, frequency and geographical reach of transit feeder systems, land use changes near stations, and numerous other things.

Van Jones...Again

2009-01-12T23:01:00.000-08:00

On the topic of Van Jones, Treeblogger is not the only outfit writing about him. There is a seven page article about him and the green jobs movement in the Jan. 12, 2009 New Yorker, and it's certainly worth a look. It provides interesting insights into both the power and limitations of a single person with a dream. Additionally, it depicts how quickly an untested and somewhat vague idea can gain steam and turn into a full-fledged public policy movement - a testament to the power of image and the prospect, whether realistic or not, of killing two birds with one stone. It remains to be seen whether a green economy is truly a holy grail for the chronically un- and underemployed or just another mirage. However, with Obama seemingly on the green economy bandwagon and willing to push supportive federal policies and programs, we should see some more definitive results in the years to come.

VJ for EJ!

2008-11-24T08:55:00.000-08:00

***UPDATE: Van Jones' talk postponed till early next semester; will post with details as they're announced.***

Ok, so I’ll be honest. I haven’t read Van Jones’ new book yet – it dropped October 7 – but it’s on my shelf, ready to crack open as soon as finals are over. If you want some reviews, you can find a few here and here (and here if you’re kind of obsessed with how new media/network culture is the future). Despite my not having read the book, I wanted to write a quick, somewhat timely, post to say two things, that are pretty much just one thing.

One, Van Jones is tight. He was pioneering the green jobs movement for a decade and a half -- way before the economy careened off a cliff and Al Gore somehow convinced the mainstream that melting ice caps are bad news (polar) bears. Now everyone is jumping on board because, really, what could be sexier than environmentalism + economic stimulus + a deliberate and strategic effort to un-whitewash the green movement? Yeah, exactly.*

And, he’s homegrown. Right in our own backyard of Oakland, he founded Green For All to build the movement for a green economy and, previously, co-founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights helping to lift disadvantaged communities up by building community and integrating them into the growing green infrastructure. He is also a founding board member of the Apollo Alliance, which is doing awesome work bringing together everyone from unions to conservationists to shape progressive policy from the ground up. (I heard Co-Director and Boalt alum Kate Gordon speak a couple months ago at a CCELP talk and was very impressed.)

Two, go to his talk on Tuesday, December 2 sponsored by the Berkeley Energy and Resources Collaborative! It’s our last day of classes – there is no better way to celebrate than to listen to a brilliant, inspiringly entrepreneurial guy talk about issues way more interesting and relevant than claim preclusion. I bet my little green fake-sigg water bottle on it. And if you missed Majora Carter’s inspiring talk on her environmental justice work a couple weeks ago, you definitely owe it to yourself to get your EJ fix. (In the meantime, you should also check out her TED talk if you haven’t already.)

*Well, actually, for an interesting alternate view, check out this article from the Economist. If you don’t have free market tendencies, you’ll disagree immediately. Even if you do, it’s easily rebuttable on a number of counts that I’ll go into at a later date…

SF to Implement New Parking Pricing Scheme

2008-11-23T17:20:00.000-08:00

The board of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency decided last week to implement a trial sliding-scale pricing scheme for 6,000 of the city’s parking spaces. The program will be in effect for 18 months, starting next spring. Parking space occupancy will be monitored in six areas of the city and parking prices will be adjusted up or down every month or so based on observed congestion. Parking prices will generally range from 25¢ to $6 per hour, though could increase to as much as $18 in some areas during big events. Prices will also likely vary by time of day and not just place.

Can I say finally?

Publicly provided parking has long been underpriced, and often free – and this is to say nothing of the disastrous impacts of large off-street parking requirements for private projects. Underpriced on-street parking in urban areas, particularly central business districts, leads to numerous negative externalities that drivers should rightfully internalize through higher costs. As drivers circle around looking for an ideal spot, they create air pollution (with health, global warming and other impacts), noise, congestion and resultant stress, loss of time and productivity, and increased risks of accidents (especially with pedestrians and bicyclists).

The negative externalities produced by auto use have long been recognized and have led to the imposition of gas taxes and various other fees and taxes on auto-related activities and goods. Nonetheless, publicly provided parking has generally remained very cheap, preventing full internalization of the external costs of driving. There is no reason that those who don’t drive should have to incur any part of these costs.

Free (or cheap) parking is not a fundamental right. Sure, many people have come to expect and rely on cheap parking over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, but that doesn’t mean they automatically accede to a right to impose significant negative externalities on the general population, future generations and environment. “Well,” you might say, “we’re improving automotive technologies and reducing air pollution externalities.” Yes, that is true, but even hybrid, electric and biodiesel autos produce significant air pollution and have other, sometimes unique, environmental impacts – e.g. electric battery production and disposal. And all auto use, regardless of the type of vehicle driven, still causes other problems like congestion and increased risk of accidents. Thus, absent complete elimination of negative externalities, these central questions remain: Why should drivers be favored over non-drivers? Why should automobiles be our primary mode of transportation? If you have the answers, let me know.

By increasing the cost of parking, congestion would be reduced and local governments would increase their revenues – which additional money they should use to pay for increased transit provision, air quality improvement, and other measures to reduce the externalities of driving and provide alternate mobility options. San Francisco has taken an important first step towards realizing these benefits, and I hope they prove fruitful. It is too early to tell whether a sea change is occurring in parking policy, but with already encouraging results from London’s congestion pricing program, successes in San Francisco could induce other localities in the United States to implement similar schemes.

New Federal Office of Urban Policy?

2008-11-11T18:00:00.000-08:00

One of Obama's three transition team co-chairs, Valerie Jarrett, told reporters that Obama would create a new Office of Urban Policy. It is unclear what role the office would have, but its creation could herald a much greater federal involvement in urban planning and policy. While the police power - the basis of authority for state and local land use regulation - is impliedly reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment, the feds could exert significantly more control over urban policy than they have historically. For example, they could put greater and/or more specific conditions on the allocation of federal money for transportation and community development projects. An Office of Urban Policy could also institute and oversee a much greater linkage between federal transportation, community development and other urban programs and grants and the agencies that manage them. Most people focus on the EPA and Interior, Agriculture and Energy Departments when discussing federal environmental policy, but federal policies on transportation and urban development have numerous direct and indirect environmental impacts and will play an increasingly important role in combating global warming.

Oh, and you can go here to vote on projects you think the new office should take on. The website was set up by the same people who created walkscore.com. Obviously there's no guarantee that the projects receiving the most votes will be pursued by the Obama Administration, but at least voting is kinda fun.

Treeblogger Gets It Right!

2008-11-06T10:19:00.000-08:00

All four of the CA ballot initiatives with environmental consequences were decided favorably on Tuesday. Now if only we could reverse that pesky marriage amendment...

2008-10-29T11:31:00.000-07:00

PROPOSITION 1A

In an ideal world, instead of a high-speed rail system, I would rather see airport and road capacity held constant and wait for congestion and increased oil prices to reduce demand for longer-distance intercity travel. We have abused cheap long-distance travel to the detriment of our health and environment, and it should be curtailed. However, purposely constraining road and airport capacity is politically unpalatable and unlikely. Thus, given the dangers of global warming, a high-speed rail system makes some sense. At present, I cautiously support Prop 1A despite all its flaws because I think it would eventually lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions relative to a scenario where no high-speed rail system is built (since roads and airports would likely see relatively greater expansion). However, its flaws are serious and there are many unanswered questions – before making a voting decision, these warrant your scrutiny.

Prop 1A Overview
Prop 1A would authorize the sale of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds. Of that, $9 billion would be available for a high-speed passenger train system, and primarily for the planning and construction of the SF-LA corridor. Before the California High Speed Rail Authority could use any of the funds, however, the legislature would have make specific appropriations, conditional on CHSRA’s submission of funding plans. CHSRA’s current plans for the SF-LA corridor include ten stops between the end-points, with an estimated total travel time of 2 hours 38 minutes (and a train speed of up to 220 mph). For maps of the proposed routes and more: CHSRA website.

My Thoughts
Funding:
By any estimate, the high-speed rail system would be very expensive. Excluding interest on bond debt, CHSRA estimates it would cost $45 billion (2006$) to construct the entire system and over $1 billion annually to operate it. One report, funded by Prop 1A opponents, estimates much higher costs. Constructing the SF-LA corridor by itself would be cheaper, but Prop 1A funds would still not even cover half the costs. So, where do the other funds come from?

CHSRA assumes large amounts of federal funding ($10-12 billion), private investment (~$5 billion) and local government cost-sharing. However, federal funding is not guaranteed and certainly not in the amount of $10-12 billion. Obtaining federal funding for transit, and especially rail, is very competitive. In addition, the potentially available pots of money (e.g. those provided in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) are not that large. Furthermore, private investment is unlikely until additional funding on top of Prop 1A is procured.

Will there be enough funding to complete the rail system, or even just the SF-LA corridor? The funding uncertainty and potential local opposition to the train system have caused some to contend it will never be built. Given the great political will behind the project, though, I think at least the SF-LA corridor will get built. However, it could take a very long time – and there are no guarantees. In addition, it is unlikely that operating costs and maintenance would ever be fully covered by user fees as CHSRA suggests, thus necessitating perennial government subsidies.

Ridership:
Even if the high-speed rail system does get fully funded, what would train ridership be and how much of it would be diverted versus induced? To reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions, the system would need to divert existing demand for intercity car and plane travel; inducing new demand for intercity travel would have the opposite effect.

Ridership levels are not easy to measure, particularly in the case of high-speed rail systems – since there are so few worldwide, making comparisons difficult. CHSRA estimates that 2020 ridership would be 32 million, with 6% coming from induced demand and 87% from diverted air and auto trips. However, 6% induced demand strikes me as awfully low.

For one, the large number of stations between LA and SF, some in much cheaper housing markets, will likely induce people to move and become long-distance commuters. Having that many stations also leads to me question the ability of the trains to make the SF-LA trip in 2 hours 38 minutes, which would require a 165 mph average speed. With greater delays, the number and proportion of trips diverted to the rail system would decrease.

Further, without the rail system, demand for intercity travel might decline on its own as oil prices and congestion increase – with demand diverted into telecommuting and longer trip stays. The rail system could prevent that demand reduction by providing another transport alternative. Still, with no rail system (and even with), road and airport capacity would likely be expanded, which would also impede an otherwise natural decrease in intercity travel.

I’m confident a high-speed rail system would divert some plane and auto trips and lead to eventual decreases in greenhouse gas emissions caused by intercity travel (after the emissions caused by the project’s construction are equalized) – I just don’t know by how much and how long it would take.

Environmental Impacts:
The proposed high-speed rail system would have negative environmental impacts. For instance, the system is expected to induce new growth around its stations, especially in the Central Valley (e.g. Fresno, Visalia, Bakersfield). It’s true that California is growing anyways, but there’s no need to further incentivize growth, especially in the form of long-distance commuters seeking cheap housing (and creating induced train system demand). CHSRA’s current plan to place the system stations in existing downtown areas is an important but insufficient counter-sprawl measure.

The rail system would also directly create environmental problems. For one, CHSRA’s preferred SF-LA route would bisect a huge swath of wetlands north of Los Banos, including the Grasslands Ecological Area, the “largest contiguous area of wetlands” in California, home to numerous rare and endangered species of plants and a wintering area for over a million birds along the Pacific Flyway.

In Sum
While I currently support Prop 1A, the benefits and feasibility of CHSRA's proposed high-speed rail system are so unclear that I may change my mind. Because of these uncertainties, I encourage you not just take someone's word for or against the proposal. Look over the questions raised and make your own judgment call.

Prop 1A Supporters/Opponents
Proponents include numerous environmental organizations, the California Democratic Party, numerous local governments and elected officials, and others.

Opponents include the Reason Foundation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, some elected officials, and others.

YES ON PROPOSITION 2

2008-10-29T07:54:00.000-07:00

Your ballot will refer to Proposition 2 as “Standards For Confining Farm Animals” rather than as “The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act,” which is how the prospective law will be cited for legal purposes. This more moderate title will make you feel like less of an asshole if you choose to vote against Proposition 2, but it also accurately reflects the Proposition’s limited scope. Even with Proposition 2 in place there will still be plenty of room for California farmers to maintain artificially low bottom lines by treating their farm animals cruelly.

Despite its modest aims, Proposition 2 represents an important step toward establishing as a legal reality the common sense notion that farmers who raise animals have an obligation to treat those animals humanely. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly given the strength of the farm lobby, there are essentially no laws in place to protect the welfare of farm animals in California.

Proposition 2 mandates that veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg laying hens must spend the majority of the day with room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around. Given that California’s commercial veal and swine industries are relatively minor, the primary affect of this measure will be to eliminate the particularly harsh practice of storing hens in “battery cages” in which the birds are crammed tightly together as though they are inanimate commodities.

The opposition to Proposition 2 stems primarily from concerns that the measure will have a significant adverse impact on California’s $337 million egg industry. Although forecasting the precise impacts of the measure is a speculative endeavor, Proposition 2 will have economic consequences.

Over 90% of the approximately 20 million egg laying hens in the state currently live in battery cages, and Proposition 2 will force those farmers who utilize battery cages to overhaul their operations. If this drives farms out of business or out of state, California’s tax base will be reduced, and egg prices will likely rise as a result of increased production costs(estimates range from as little as one cent per egg to as much as twice their current price).

Another concern is that because this measure only affects egg production within the state and places no restrictions on eggs produced elsewhere, the measure could simply cause vendors to import unregulated, cheaper eggs (either from other states or Mexico), thereby harming the California egg industry without leading to a substantial net reduction in the number of hens forced to live in battery cages.

Any adverse economic impacts will, however, be mitigated by the fact that the measure will not take affect until January 1, 2015, giving farmers more than six years to develop viable operations not premised on providing the absolute minimum amount of space to their animals. Furthermore, Proposition 2 has symbolic significance and could help bring about a broader shift in both agricultural practice and consumer choice. Similar laws have already been passed in Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Oregon, (although Proposition 2 would be the first to eliminate battery cages for hens) and California, the nation’s largest agricultural state and a trend setter on a variety of fronts, could stimulate other states to follow its lead.

California consumers can help dictate this result by demanding that the eggs they purchase come from farms that operate pursuant to standards of confinement equivalent to those prescribed by Proposition 2. Currently 5% of all eggs are produced from “cage free” operations, and consumer demand could drive that number much higher. The successful passage of Proposition 2 will send the message that California consumers want their eggs to come from farms that employ humane practices.

The bottom line is that the farming industry has gotten away for far too long without being subjected to standards that set minimum levels of protection for farm animals. Given the power of the California farm lobby, a ballot proposition may be the only chance for the California electorate to ensure that a law protecting farm animals is enacted. Just as industry had to learn to survive economically without being able to dump waste directly into rivers or emit pollutants into the air with impunity, it is not unreasonable to require farmers to similarly evolve in their animal treatment practices. Allowing farmers to treat farm animals cruelly amounts to a direct economic subsidy, paid for by the animals themselves.

Proposition 2, although limited in scope, provides an opportunity for Californians to deliver the message that they will no longer tolerate unchecked cruelty against farm animals.

I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 2.
-----
The main sponsors of Proposition 2 are the Humane Society of the United States (the wealthiest animal rights organization in the country with a budget of over $100 million) and Farm Sanctuary (the largest organization in the country devoted specifically to farm animal rights).

Supporters of Proposition 2 include: California Veterinary Medical Association; Center for Food Safety; Union of Concerned Scientists; United Farm Workers; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Sierra Club California; Consumer Federation of America; California Democratic Party; Michael Pollan; Bill McKibben; and Eric Schlosser.

Tycoon in a (green) sheep's clothing

2008-10-28T09:37:00.000-07:00

If you haven’t heard already, Prop 10 is a joke.

Prop 10 – the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Bond Proposition – is the brainchild of T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oil tycoon. It positions him to benefit handsomely from a distortion of the energy market that is costly for taxpayers and contrary to responsible energy and environmental policy.

Prop 10 diverts $5 billion away from crucial areas like education, transportation, and public health, primarily to subsidize the natural gas fuels industry. The cost to taxpayers over 30 years would be $10 billion or about $335 million a year. If such a dramatic amount is going to be diverted from vital services, especially in a financial crisis, it better be for a damn good reason. But it’s not.

It would be one thing if Prop 10 provided a boost that was clearly necessary and effective. However, the measure’s centerpiece is a bundle of incentives that mainly benefits fleet operators and corporations buying or leasing natural gas trucks – without any requirements that these trucks will actually improve air quality or reduce greenhouse gases. Even if some improvement is assumed, the incentive is only available to a narrow chunk of the fuels market, excluding hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, and other clean fuels.

By essentially legislating the creation of an artificial market, Prop 10 distracts from investment and development in more fruitful energy solutions. And, even if it weren’t such a flawed plan, it duplicates programs that already exist. Furthermore, increased demand for natural gas will encourage more potentially destructive drilling and, unluckily for the consumer, will also mean higher electricity and heating bills.

Prop 10 is indefensible on its merits. Its existence is only explainable when you learn that T. Boone Pickens just so happens to be the founder and majority shareholder in Clean Energy, North America’s largest vehicular natural gas provider. He paid $3 million to collect enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, hoping to greenwash his way into a guaranteed market for his company. Thankfully, voters will likely be in no mood for such shenanigans in the middle of a financial crisis and Mr. Pickens will have to think of another way to line his pockets.

Selected organizations against Prop 10: California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), The Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environment California, Plug In America, The Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy (AREP), Consumer Federation of California, California Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.prop10yes.com
http://www.noonproposition10.org

NO on PROPOSITION 7: Messy Measure Hurts Clean Energy

2008-10-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

Prop 7 embodies both the ideals and the fatal flaws of the California initiative process. Well-intentioned yet tragically defective, Prop 7 would add complexity and unreachable standards to legislation that is already both sufficient and effective. Worse yet, it is laden with loopholes and inflexible standards that would require a 2/3 majority vote by the CA legislature to repair.

Alternative energy is a worthy cause that needs all the legislative support it can get. But the ill-conceived regulations in Prop 7 (drawn up by John Sperling, founder of the for-profit University of Phoenix) are destined for failure. One particularly egregious clause would allow contracts to suffice as demonstration of compliance, rather then actual production. California needs real energy solutions, not phantom projects that will never be completed.

Furthermore, Prop 7’s pricing policies rigidly restrain the price of renewable electricity, a foolhardy rule likely to impede important wind and solar projects while allowing natural gas prices to soar with the market. Such price limits could actually slow the development of renewable electricity projects by making it more difficult for them to attain financing.

Finally, Prop 7 bizarrely discriminates against projects that are less than 30 megawatts. Small projects should be favored over large projects because they can better meet local needs and provide local jobs. Such projects currently account for nearly 60 percent of current renewable energy projects. Many of these will be at risk of being driven out of the market entirely under Prop 7’s new structure.

The California legislature needs the freedom to create carefully designed policies that will promote equitable and effective energy policy. Prop 7 will erect practically irreversible frameworks requiring a 2/3 majority to reform, thus crippling the legislature’s ability to produce innovative and badly needed energy policies. In the words of the San Francisco Chronicle, Prop 7 drives renewable energy off a cliff. But you don’t have to take their word for it. Here is the extensive list of environmental organizations in opposition to Prop 7: California League of Conservation Voters, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Coalition for Clean Air, Environment California, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Treeblogger RELAUNCH!

2008-10-26T23:30:00.000-07:00

After a brief hiatus, Treeblogger is back in force. We're debuting the new edition of the blog with editorials on the four environmentally significant propositions on the 2008 California ballot. We welcome your feedback!

New (Academic) Year, New Post

2007-08-22T10:34:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year again. If we were elsewhere in the country, I would talk of the weather beginning to cool and the leaves beginning to turn, as the kids go off back to school. In the Bay, though, the weather actually gets warmer (although I've heard it was quite nice all summer), so we're about to enter a two month stretch of just about the most beautiful weather anywhere, and that can only mean one thing: time to be back in the classroom.

Personally, I spent all summer missing beautiful weather because I was stuck in an office. Now I have to spend two more months missing beautiful weather because I'm stuck in class. So...WELCOME BACK! (or just WELCOME! for those of you who've just started).

This will be the Treeblogger's first full academic year of existence, and it should be a good one. We'll try to have regular updates with all sorts of exciting news (and hopefully fun). As ever, story ideas (or stories themselves) or any other questions can be sent to treeblogger@gmail.com. Check back soon!

Coal Bed Methane Development Hurts Sage Grouse

2007-07-05T11:20:00.000-07:00

Studies formally released this week by Dr. David Naugle of the University of Montana indicate that sage grouse populations are suffering drastically from Coal Bed Methane Development in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, with populations in disturbed areas falling 86% from 2000 to 2005.

This is probably no surprise, except to the BLM, who says it will "take the information into account." BLM's issuance of thousands of coal-bed methane leases, in accordance with the administration's energy policy but maybe not the laws BLM is supposed to follow (FLPMA anyone?), has helped lead the sage grouse down this road.

The state of Wyoming recently held a sage grouse summit, called for by Governor Freudenthal and attended by members of industry, government, landowners, and environmental groups. Many in the state want to avoid listing of the grouse as an endangered species, because of the massive ramifications of such an action. As such, the state is currently trying to finagle industry and BLM into taking preemptive measures to protect the sage grouse. These measures have not yet worked, and it is now time to get serious about protection, as Naugle's study shows.

AP Story here.

CBM Development in the Powder River Basin

Schwarzenegger Names Environmental Lawyer (and Former Chair of ARB) as New Head of ARB

2007-07-05T10:59:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, Mary Nichols was named chair of the California Air Resources Board. She formerly held the same position under Gov. Jerry Brown and also served as resources secretary for Gov. Gray Davis. Nichols' designation comes in the wake of a week in which the previous chair Robert Sawyer was fired and Executive Officer Catherine Witherspoon resigned, both apparently in response to the Governator's meddling attempts to soften the implementation of AB 32, California's landmark greenhouse gas reduction laws.

SF Chron coverage of the appointment here.

More about the business leading to the Sawyer's firing and Witherspoon's resignation here.

Supreme Court Hates Endangered Species (Well, 5 Justices Do at Least)

2007-07-02T11:31:00.000-07:00

The opinion in National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife came down from on high last week, and it was not really good news. The basic holding is something like EPA cannot deny Clean Water Act 402 state certification if the nine requirements in the statute are met, even if such approval may violate the Endangered Species Act's section 7 "no jeopardy" requirement. Put another way: section 7 consultation is not required for 402 certification, nor, in fact, for any mandatory federal action. You can read the full opinion for yourself here.

It is not a good ruling. And if you believe Steven dissent (which I do), it's pretty flawed reasoning. Alito framed the issue in a skewed way as whether section 7 imposes a 10th criterion for 402 certification, and it goes downhill from there, resting mostly on tired textualist drivel like the presumption against implied repeals. As Stevens points out, there's also a crazy reading of the regulations implementing section 7. The regulations state that section 7 consultation applies to discretionary federal actions, but Alito casually slipped an only before discretionary, and that was pretty much the end of it. Read the dissent for a better description of how wrong this is.

My favorite part, though, is Ali's disapproving statement (after noting "[s]ection 7(a)(2) by its terms applies to 'any action authorized, funded, or carried out by' a federal agency") that, "[r]eading [section 7(a)(2) broadly would thus partially override every federal statute mandating agency action by subjecting such action to the further condition that it pose no jeopardy to endangered species." Hmm...YEAH! That's the point!!!

I just don't see how they could hate something as cute as the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl.

EPA and COE release Rapanos Guidance

2007-06-07T09:20:00.000-07:00

A year after the mess that is Rapanos EPA and the Corps have finally released guidance documents on how they will be determining Clean Water Act jurisdiction. It's probably the best they can do under the circumstances, and they seem (or at least claim) to be trying not to contract or expand their jurisdiction, but rather to just make sure the determinations comport with one of the tests in Rapanos (the plurality's continuous surface connection standard and Kennedy's significant nexus standard).

But it still seems to leave everything very messy, involving a lot of case by case determinations for non-navigable tributaries and wetlands adjacent to them. This includes intermittent and ephemeral streams in the West. Just really messy. Congress should step in, though I understand there is a Clean Water Authorization Act in the works. I'll hope for the best.

On a side note, going back to Scalia's original opinion, I am endlessly amused by his use of an antiquated dictionary, and befuddled by his method of defining "intermittent streams" and "ephemeral streams" by looking up the definitions for "intermittent" and "ephemeral" standing alone. Maybe he should look up "jargon" and get it through his head that certain fields, especially science, have specialized, technical definitions that may not be in his 1954 Webster's 2nd. So it goes...

$100 Million Santa Clarita Valley Settlement Reached

2007-05-06T16:02:00.000-07:00

from AP/SFGate

"A $100 million groundwater cleanup deal was struck after a nearly seven-year legal battle with former and current owners of a defunct munitions plant.

Four Santa Clarita Valley water agencies agreed to the settlement calling for the Whittaker-Bermite facility's current and former owners to clean up the perchlorate contamination. The chemical is used in the manufacture of explosives, munitions and rocket fuel.

The Castaic Lake Water Agency, Newhall County Water District, Santa Clarita Water Co. and Valencia Water Co. sued current and former operators of the munitions site after perchlorate was found in five Santa Clarita Valley wells.

"This ensures funding for a very important cleanup project in the Santa Clarita Valley. It's very nice that we have a cooperative approach," attorney Frederic A. Fudacz said.

The settlement, reported Thursday by the Daily Journal, must be approved by a federal bankruptcy judge in Arizona because the site's current owners, Remediation Financial Inc. and Arizona-based Santa Clarita LLC, filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

The 1,000-acre Bermite site manufactured ammunition, explosives, flares and detonators since the 1940s. Whittaker Corp. operated the site until 1999, when it was purchased by Remediation Financial and Santa Clarita LLC.

The settlement agreement reached by Whittaker, Remediation Financial and Santa Clarita provides $100 million for the construction of replacement wells, pipelines and a treatment facility to remove perchlorate. . ."