The Newsletter of the Conservation Committees
of the Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club. Email items or articles to Editor: Robin Ives, Publisher/Webmaster: Lori Ives
The Conservation Committees provide forums for Club members to discuss impending conservation issues and to coordinate efforts of conservation subcommittees with groups and sections. They meet monthly every third Tuesday (Orange County) and third Wednesday (Angeles Chapter). Contact the Conservation Committee Chairs by the end of the previous month for a place on the agenda. Deadline for newsletter submissions is 16 days before the Chapter meeting.

You were not forgotten! The Editor and Publisher took December, 2007 off for the Holidays. There was no December Newsletter. But we are back to business as usual. Happy, safe, healthy, peaceful, green 2008 to all.

Quotes of Note

Ten years ago, no one would have guessed that long-distance telephone service would be free.
—Venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, voicing his confidence in American's ability to use advanced biofuel and other technology to cleanly meet our energy needs.

EPA Waives Clean Cars Goodbye
by Josh Dorner

December 21, 2007—The Bush administration sure knows how to ruin a good party. On Wednesday morning, President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a whole pack of Congressmen gathered at the Energy Department to enjoy a brief moment of peace between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and sing Kumbaya over the energy bill. Then, in a classic bit of Washington high theatre, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson swooped in like the Grinch and stole our Green Christmas by denying California the waiver it (along with at least 16 other states) needs to move forward with its landmark global warming emissions standards for cars.

In an evening press conference called with little more than half an hour's notice, Johnson explained that California's need to deal with global warming did not meet the "extraordinary and compelling" circumstances spelled out in the Clean Air Act and that the energy bill's compromise CAFE provision was the administration's "comprehensive" response to global warming emissions from vehicles, thank you very much. While this decision has long been expected, it was particularly galling that the energy bill, with its ink barely dry, was used as the pretext for denying the waiver.

The reaction of state officials and politicians ranged from "disappointing," "absurd," "indefensible," "a mockery of the law," to "disgraceful." But at least someone was happy. The auto industry—fresh off yet another stinging loss in the courts just last week—issued a glowing press statement commending EPA. California, the Sierra Club, and others of course immediately pledged to take EPA to court over the decision.

While EPA may have thought that its hastily-called, Wednesday-evening-before-Christmas presser would be enough to bury the news, they were badly mistaken. For one, the Washington Post obtained internal EPA documents that demonstrate that Johnson denied the waiver over the "unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs." Indeed, the EPA's own lawyers predicted they would lose in court if it denied the waiver and would almost certainly beat back an auto industry lawsuit if it approved it.

Looks like Johnson's got some 'splainin' to do. Luckily, it appears he will have no shortage of venues in which to explain exactly why he overruled his staff and participated in a possibly illegal lobbying campaign against the waiver orchestrated by the White House and the Department of Transportation. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, whose requests for meetings with Johnson over the past two weeks went unanswered, has pledged to bring him before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. Similarly, Congress' Maestro of Oversight, Rep. Henry Waxman—also of California—expressed his outrage in a statement and indicated his own Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be delving into the process behind the denial.

As our lawyer who's been fighting this in the courts all year said, these guys are 0-4 and they are about to go 0-5.

Clean Energy Bill Goes the Way of the Dinosaurs
by Josh Dorner

December 14, 2007—Yesterday witnessed one of the biggest environmental victories since the Clean Air Act revamp in 1990. The Senate voted by an overwhelming margin of 86-8 to approve the first increase in fuel economy standards in more than three decades. Unfortunately, provisions to require renewable electricity production and a plan to shift billions in giveaways away from Big Oil's bottom line to renewable energy were left on the cutting room floor thanks to the efforts of one man: Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico.

Domenici, the leading general in the Southern Company's war on clean energy in Congress, threw a hissy fit after the House voted by a resounding margin to pass an energy bill including the renewable energy provisions. Domenici single-handedly filibustered the RES in Senate this summer, managed to convince enough senators to stick with him on his latest filibuster and blocked a vote to end debate on the bill last week.

Bowing to reality, Senate Majority Leader Reid reluctantly dropped the RES and brought the bill up for another vote yesterday morning. The forces of darkness again prevailed—this by a heartbreaking margin of just one vote. As Majority Whip Dick Durbin said, the Senate was being held hostage by Big Oil. Indeed, the only Democrat to vote against the bill was Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, long known for her close ties to the oil and gas industry. Other Senators that voted to give America a big lump of coal for Christmas included Arlen Specter (PA), Judd Gregg (NH), and John Sununu (NH)—proof positive that those two Granite Staters must really have rocks in their head.

After the rollbacks to Big Oil were dropped, enough Senators found the courage to vote for an increase in fuel economy standards at time when oil is near $100 a barrel and their constituents are suffering under cripplingly high energy costs. However, despite the auto industry and the UAW supporting the bill, Senator Debbie Stabenow (MI) seems to have a particularly persistent case of Stockholm Syndrome and joined 7 other energy dinosaurs in voting against the bill. I was half expecting some of those dinosaurs to turn to coal right on the Senate floor due the crushing weight of their irresponsibility.

Looks like they saved that trick for their constituent's stockings.

Cal-EPA Plan Could Make State a Leader
in Toxic Chemicals Policy
by Bill Magavern

December 13, 2007—Lead-tainted toys and lunchboxes. Mercury in dental fillings. Carcinogens in baby bottles. Furniture with toxic flame retardants. Every week brings news of another consumer product that could be hazardous to our health.

Most Californians would be surprised to find out that our state government has no authority to assure that the goods sold at our local stores are safe for our families. The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Chemistry Initiative has the potential to fix this problem—but only if it survives intense lobbying by the chemical industry.

The Schwarzenegger administration has done a balancing act on environmental issues, striving to make the governor an eco-hero without upsetting his big-business allies. In some areas, like climate change and ocean protection, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made major strides beyond anything his predecessors accomplished, and he has reaped global acclaim for doing so. At other times, his closeness to big business has put him at odds with the cause of environmental sustainability, as in his support for building costly and unnecessary new dams.

The Green Chemistry Initiative offers the governor an opportunity to do for toxic chemicals policy what the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, has done for atmospheric protection: make California a national leader, filling the void left by a corrupt polluter-coddling regime in the White House.

The driving force behind the Green Chemistry Initiative is Maureen Gorsen, the governor’s appointed Director of the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Gorsen, a Republican who is serious about enforcing the law and fulfilling her department’s mission, realizes that it’s a lot cleaner and cheaper to prevent pollution at the front end than to merely clean up poisons after they’ve been released into our air, water and land. As Gorsen has said, “The initiative seeks to reduce the use of hazardous materials at the beginning of a product life cycle rather than dispose of toxics at the end of a product’s useful life.”

By New Year’s Day, Gorsen and her team will make public a set of options for accomplishing that goal. Policy recommendations to Cal-EPA Secretary Linda Adams are due by July 1—in time to be incorporated into legislation by the end of the 2008 session. And make no mistake about it: The Green Chemistry Initiative will be a failure if it does not result in major new statutory authority for Cal-EPA to protect us from toxins that are currently allowed to contaminate our bodies and our environment.

The Legislature should give DTSC the authority to, if warranted by scientific evidence from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, ban or restrict the usage of particular chemicals in consumer products. The process could be patterned on the Air Resources Board’s program that has successfully reduced emissions from consumer products.

Cal-EPA’s scientific experts will need to set priorities in addressing hazardous substances, and should start by protecting the most vulnerable people, like children. Our government must ensure that products that many infants are exposed to—from baby bottles to toys to baby food containers—will be safe for the next generation.

State government should lead the way to driving demand for cleaner products through its own procurement processes; Cal-EPA should continue and enhance its collaboration with the State and Consumer Services Agency on greening the government, and help local governments to follow. And workers should be better protected from toxins in the workplace.

Furthermore, manufacturers of products containing hazardous materials should be held responsible for the safe disposal of those products at the end of their useful lives. The Integrated Waste Management Board should work with the Legislature to require extended producer responsibility for such products, and should exercise that authority by prioritizing consumer products that, when discarded, become hazardous waste (like mercury-containing thermostats).

Chemical industry lobbyists are hoping to torpedo or water down the Green Chemistry Initiative by going over the heads of Cal-EPA and appealing to the governor’s office. Schwarzenegger sent the industry a signal that he takes the threat of toxic products seriously when he signed the Toxic Toys bill, AB1108, in October. His next step should be to make clear in his State of the State address that 2008 will be the year that we reform chemical policy in California.

Senators Float Plan to End Entrance Fees

by Dan Berman

December 11, 2007—Two Western senators yesterday introduced a bill to remove entrance fees from public lands and national forests coast-to-coast. Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) want to repeal the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, which established entrance and enhanced user fees on Interior Department and Forest Service lands but has drawn criticism for its fee structure and uneven enforcement.

Nicknamed the Recreation Access Tax (RAT) by opponents, FLREA was included as a rider on an omnibus spending bill in December 2004 at the behest of Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) and with the support of the Bush administration. FLREA was the successor to the "fee demo" program the agencies had operated under since fiscal 1997.

The bill would essentially restore the fee structure that existed before 1996, meaning only the National Park Service would be allowed to charge entrance fees, and entrance fees for the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service would disappear.

"Mandatory user fees for access to many of those lands limits accessibility to those who can afford the cost and results in a 'pay-to-play' system that is unacceptable," Crapo said in a statement.

"It's the first really important thing that's happened since fee demo was passed," said Kitty Benzar of the Western Slope No Fee Coalition. "It gives us something positive to support instead of beating our heads."

Interior collected nearly $180 million in recreation fees in fiscal 2006, according to budget documents. The vast majority of fees—$159 million—were collected by the National Park Service, which is also moving to increase entrance and parking fees from coast to coast.

Before 2006, NPS had 17 separate entrance-fee rate schedules and no consistency from park to park. Now, the agency has a four-tier system, ranging from $5 to $12 per person and $10 to $25 per vehicle. BLM collected $15 million in 2006, a number projected to drop in 2007. The Fish and Wildlife Service collected $4.3 million in 2006, and was projected to collect slightly more in 2007.

"The department believes that the authorization that Congress gave to the Interior Department and Forest Service in 2005 under the act was an essential tool that allows us to retain recreation fee revenues and utilize the revenue collected under the act to enhance the visitor experience," Interior spokesman Shane Wolfe said in an e-mail.

The Forest Service collected $53 million under FLREA in fiscal 2006, and spent $51 million that year on visitor services, maintenance and repairs and other enhancements, according to the agency. About 98 percent of national forest lands remain free, as do 65 percent of Forest Service developed sites.

Agencies would still be allowed to charge for developed campgrounds, swimming and boating sites. The fees they collect would no longer remain at the sites they are collected, but the money would revert to the federal treasury to be subject to the annual appropriations process. Under FLREA, 80 percent of fees are to be used at sites where they are collected.

"Right now each little district ranger is a business unit and is operating like a business unit without congressional oversight," Benzar said.

FLREA also mandated the creation of the $80 "America the Beautiful" annual pass good for Interior and Forest Service public lands, replacing a $50 pass good for all national parks, essentially meaning a $30 increase for those who wanted a national parks-specific pass. The Baucus-Crapo bill would re-establish the parks-only pass and abolish the "America the Beautiful" pass, as entrance fees would not need to be collected on the other public lands.

"We continue to believe that the America the Beautiful Pass is an economical way for visitors to see their public lands and is a good-government tool that provides a one-stop shop for visitors to all Interior lands," Wolfe said.

Several state legislatures, including those in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Alaska have approved resolutions over the past three years opposing the expanded fee collection program.

Help Stop Logging in the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness

The National Forest Service has proposed a new logging and road building project in the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness. The logging project would degrade wilderness values and negatively impact Perrazo Creek, an eligible wild and scenic river.

The 16,000 acre Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness in the Tahoe National Forest provides Californians with spectacular outdoor recreation opportunities and is home to several important watersheds that supply drinking water to Nevada County and wildlife habitat for endangered species. These spectacular wild lands provide habitat for the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout, willow flycatcher, northern goshawk and the California spotted owl. The area is also home to old growth red-fir forests.

In the name of fire protection and watershed restoration, the Forest Service’s recently released Montez Environmental Assessment (EA) proposes a 168-acre timber harvest within the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness. Unfortunately, the EA fails to assess impacts to the potential wilderness, Perrazo Creek or the numerous wildlife species in the area.

Act now to help protect the Castle Peak Potential Wilderness & Perrazo Creek eligible Wild and Scenic River.

Write, fax or email the Forest Service today to show your support for protecting the Castle Peak Proposed Wilderness and Perrazo Creek.

A Photographic View of Climate Change
by Gary Braasch

A Photographic View of Climate Change by Gary Braasch, at Shumei Hall Gallery, 2430 East Colorado Boulevard (just east of Sierra Madre Boulevard) in Pasadena (626) 584-8841. Hours are 10 am - 6 pm, Monday-Saturday.

“This exhibit, originally scheduled to close December 9, has been extended through January 26. The exhibit consists of 30 photos, taken throughout the world, which vividly highlight the impact of global warming on land and water resources, plant and animal species, and human communities. Each picture is accompanied by a detailed paragraph of text describing the impact illustrated.

Gary Braasch is based in Portland, Oregon. He was awarded the Ansel Adams Award for Conservation Photography by the Sierra Club in 2006, and has received several other awards. His work on climate and biodiversity, EARTH UNDER FIRE: How Global Warming is Changing the World, was just published by University of California Press. The book, which has extensive text and additional pictures beyond those on exhibit, is for sale at the front desk of Shumei Hall (a Japanese spiritual center) for $30.

The Playbook for Bali
by Carl Pope

December 11, 2007 Denpasar, Bali—The playbook is taking shape, and this is not going to be a "Kumbaya" moment on climate change. At the same time, in the four remaining days, there is a decent shot that some important groundwork will be laid. The Bush administration, of course, is playing delay—trying to shift the focus of the conversation away from UN-style, everyone-has-a-voice negotiated agreements like Kyoto and towards "let the big guys set their own agenda" voluntary coalitions of the major carbon polluters, leaving much of the world out in the—well, heat, I guess.

The Administration has moved smoothly from denial to despair (the other two "D" words, along with delay). Even in the run-up to the conference, John Marburger, the Director of the White House Science office, claimed that the target of preventing Earth from warming more than two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, "is going to be a very difficult one to achieve." Besides, he said, what really matters are regional events (like drought in the southeast and the collapse of northern Alaska into the Arctic ocean for example). But, needless to say, there is only one world atmosphere, and if you want to minimize regional catastrophes, then you have to limit overall greenhouse pollution. The 3.6 degrees goal is a way of measuring our commitment —or Bush's lack of commitment—to avoiding catastrophe. And remember: Only a few months ago, Bush was still claiming that maybe global warming wasn't even real.

China and India are pushing back hard against new calls from both the UN Development Program and the International Energy Agency that they should step up to the table and commit to a less carbonized form of economic growth. Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of New Delhi's Planning Commission, blasted the report for failing to take into account the historical disparity in emissions from Europe and the US and a country like India. And China, too, rejected the calls, although the Chinese response was more modulated, emphasizing the need for any commitments by China to be linked to financial and technical assistance from the industrial world. "Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao Guangsheng of China's Development Commission.

But this all got weirder here this morning, when US negotiator Harlan Watson said it was "premature" to decide that major emission reductions would be needed from industrial nations. "We don't want to start out with numbers," Watson told a news conference, adding that the 25 to 40 percent range was based on "many uncertainties" and a small number of scientific studies by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the Nobel Peace Prize winner). But, of course, if it is almost impossible already to stabilize the climate, as Marburger said, then waiting two years to do anything is, in fact, the counsel of despair.

The US is fighting the concept that, as Sir Nicholas Stern, the British economist whose report is one of the fundamental underpinnings of the policy conversation here put it, "now the rich must pay." Joining that fight, it appears, is the conservative government in Canada. And one of the two biggest problems with the pending Senate global warming bill is that in giving so many carbon permits away, as Europe did under Kyoto, it bribes the existing carbon polluters instead of generating funds that can be used for low carbon futures for the third world. The Japanese are being very cautious, trying to see if they can move the dialogue along without creating a deep split within the conference.

But there is tremendous excitement here at the fact that Barbara Boxer's bill was passed by the Senate Environment Committee, as well as an increasing awareness that with more than 700 "Cool Cities" and half the states having joined regional carbon-reduction compacts, America is moving even if the Bush administration is not. And one of the big mistakes in Kyoto—to treat halting deforestation differently than promoting reforestation—is very likely to get rectified. Stern points out that for only $10-15 billion a year, global deforestation rates could be halved, which by itself would reduce CO2 emissions by 10 percent.

My guess is that we still don't emerge with a solid funding mechanism to deal with this huge opportunity—just including deforestation in the existing "clean development mechanism" won't begin to do the job. We need some serious global commitment to ending the illegal timber trade and paying all rainforest nations annual rent for the carbon they are storing for the rest of us. But getting the issues on the table will tee them up for a post-Bush world in which, if public pressure continues to build, we will finally see climate chaos for what Stern calls it—the greatest market failure in human history, but one we can fix through intelligent redesign of the global energy economy.

What Part of Yes Doesn't Bush Understand?
by Carl Pope

December 13, 2007 Nusa Dua, Bali—It's vital, whatever the final outcome of this conference, to understand what happened. For the first time, every major third-world carbon emitter—China, India, South Africa—came to the table offering firm, verifiable, meaningful action to reduce their long-range carbon footprints. This is precisely what the US—and the Congress—has been asking for since the Kyoto conference. China was particularly helpful, but yesterday, in a surprise, the Indian delegation weighed in to support a South African draft that called for "national mitigation actions by developing country Parties, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner..."

And what was the US response? It was to repeatedly rebuff these efforts and to engage in last-minute brinksmanship. At 1 am on Friday morning, the US delegation proposed to completely eliminate the distinction between the obligations of the rich countries and the poor, and to return to an entirely voluntary global scheme—not only going back on the Kyoto principles, but actually backsliding on the existing, legally binding US commitment under Rio. Here's a sample excerpt from the US language: "including, as appropriate, domestic plans that MAY include binding, market-based and sectoral programs."

And how does the US delegation characterize this behavior? In an interview with Reuters, James Connaughton, the chairman of the Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality and head of the US delegation, said, "We will lead, we will continue to lead. But leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow." That statement may sum up, in a few short words, what is wrong with America's standing in the world.

Don't Forgive Them—They Know What They Do
by Carl Pope

December 13, 2007 Nusa Dua, Bali—From all the evidence, the US government is now determined to ensure that as little international agreement emerges from this conference as possible. Worse, the US delegation's presentation made it clear that the Administration's representatives know that climate change is real, appreciate the magnitude of the challenge, understand the policy and technology changes needed, know how little time is left—and yet are simply running out the clock until the next election.

Yesterday, first at a private breakfast with US environmental groups, and then in a public presentation, James Connaughton, the chairman of the Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality and head of the US delegation, presented the US analysis, showing that to stabilize the climate by 2050, the world must reduce its carbon emissions below a business-as-usual scenario: by between 25 and 40 gigatons. He laid out a wide variety of policy changes needed to achieve that goal, emphasized the need to understand that carbon pricing alone will not meet the need without regulation and investment, and emphasized repeatedly that while this is tough, "it can be done."

Connaughton also emphasized, at the breakfast with environmental groups, his deep anxiety and expressed concern that the developing nations would pull back from the progress that China, in particular, has made in recent months by recognizing that concrete, measurable actions on its part are essential in a post-Kyoto world. It was an extraordinarily effective presentation, most of which I would have been proud to give.

So the head of the US delegation understands the problem, its urgency, the solutions, and the global politics of getting the world on the same page. What does his delegation then do? Well, about an hour after the PowerPoint presentation, a story shows up in the Washington Post in which the US delegation is quoted as saying that it will leave the problem of global warming for the next Administration to solve, that it refuses to make any commitments not only here but also at its own alternative—the "major emitters meeting." And as the reports come back from the negotiating sessions on the various "tracks" that make up what Connaughton called "the Bali road map," it's clear that the US and its allies have been refusing to permit closure or progress on anything—technology transfer, deforestation, financial incentives, or targets and timetables.

Fifty-four members of Congress weighed in to urge the Administration to help this conference succeed. Al Gore arrives this afternoon to speak to the delegates tomorrow. The entire world is watching and, after showing how much they understand, the Administration is now sending an even more powerful signal of how little they care.

Meanwhile, neither the American people nor the rest of the world are giving up. It appears that the US has now agreed to a modest deal on protecting forests, and that the technology transfer debate is still going on. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is here to send a strong signal of how much progress American cities are making on climate change, as are a team from Google, and representatives from the student climate movement.

Asia's Largest Lake—Going, Going....
by Carl Pope

December 19, 2007 Tonle Sap, Cambodia—Beyond their artistry, what inspires awe about the temple complexes of the ancient Khmer Empire is their sheer scale—not just Angkor Wat but also hundreds more, some 40 years in the building, with stone hauled from a hundred miles away, and tales of 40,000 elephants toiling for decades.

Religious fervor and slavery were part of how the ancient Khmers were able to devote so much manpower to building temples—but only part. The elegance and craftsmanship of the relief panels required dedicated, skilled, and focused artisans. The Khmer kings had to be able to feed their entire population well on the labor of a relatively small portion of it—and Tonle Sap lake's ecosystem made it possible, providing protein in the form of fish, and calories in the form of paddy rice. Every ancient Khmer artisan carving the sandstone devatas of the temple carvings was supported by the gifts made possible by a big slice of rich natural ecosystem, and it was those natural services above all that made the Khmer empire powerful, and Angkor possible.

Now, Cambodia still has only 13 million people—so every citizen here still enjoys a fair chunk of the Ton Le Sap's bounty. But to the north lies China, with more than a billion, whose government announced Thursday that by 2030 it will have exploited all of its water supplies. One response is already in the works—dam the Mekong river and, in the process, dismember the web of ecosystem services provided by both the river and the Tonle Sap.

Cambodia won't be able to stop China from taking what it needs. And China has already shown, by building the Three Gorges Dam, that it will risk long-term ecological disaster to avert short-term economic upheaval. It will require a new kind of economic and ecological cooperation to avoid more and more of these beggar-your-neighbor scenarios—and a recognition that, as Tom Friedman said Sunday in the Times, "It’s Too Late for Later."

Building that kind of new world order is the biggest challenge facing the next American President—if we don't want the 21st century to be a catastrophic string of conflicts and wars over control of the Earth's rapidly diminishing biological commons and ecosystems.

Resolutions Passed by ExComm (11/17/07)

Support of the LADWP Proposed Electric Tier Rate Restructuring

The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter supports the LADWP proposed Electric Tier Rate Restructuring for the following reasons:

1. The proposed rates are tiered to charge higher rates for more usage, which encourages conservation.
2. The proposed rates and supporting programs will greatly reduce the impact on low income and lifeline customers.
3. Availability of time of use rates will encourage conservation during peak use periods.
4. Solar power installations will be encouraged by revised net metering rates.
5. The proposed rates take into consideration the different cooling requirements for the Valley vs. the rest of the city.
6. The rate restructuring will be revenue neutral within the 4 classes of customers: Residential and Low, Medium and Large Businesses.

The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter supports the intent shown by the 10/5/07 draft Los Angeles Green Building Program standards, but calls for much stricter standards with an implementation timeline.

Specifically, the Chapter supports:

1. An immediate reduction of the 50,000 s.f./ 50 or more units threshold of Standard of Sustainability, Part II, to 25,000 s.f. or 25 or more units; with phased in reduction to 5,000 s.f./ 5 or more units.
2. Incorporation of elements from other city green building programs including those of Santa Monica, Pasadena, West Hollywood and San Francisco.

Opposition to LNG Terminals

The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter opposes any new Liquefied National Gas (LNG) terminals in Los Angeles or Orange Counties and adjacent offshore areas.

Supporting reasons are:

1. Including the supply train makes CO2 emissions from LNG nearly as great as for coal
2. Investments in new fossil fuel capacity compete with investments in truly sustainable energy like wind, solar, and geothermal, threatening our ability to achieve the goals of AB 32
3. There is no demonstrated need for additional natural gas in California
4. Natural gas used to generate electricity can be replaced by renewable sources
5. There are safety and emissions concerns with any LNG facility and its pipelines.