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.

Quote of Note

We have to wake up some people who are asleep."
—Jeffrey Holzschuh, Vice Chairman of institutional securities at Morgan Stanley, on the bank's decision to require utilities seeking financing for coal-fired power plants to prove they will be economically viable even under a carbon cap system.

2008 Legislative Session and Grassroots Lobbying
by Paul Mason

Note that Sierra Club California is actively transitioning to using sierraclub.org email addresses, and we're going to be eliminating the sierraclub-sac.org email address soon. Maintaining our own server has become a problem. We'll keep an auto responder on sierraclub-sac for a while, but want to move folks to start using our new email addresses.

Please use the following email addresses to contact the Sacramento staff: For general inquiries about legislation (or anything else) contact annie.pham@sierraclub.org. If you're not sure who you need to talk to, start with Annie. If you are trying to reach one of your lobbyists here in Sacramento, please see chart below.

And while we're passing along updates, we'll be moving the Sacramento office in about a month. We are already using the new address for mailing purposes, so please update your information accordingly:

Sierra Club California (and Mother Lode Chapter & Field Staff)
801 K St Ste 2700
Sacramento CA 95814

The CLC strongly encourages Chapters and Groups to participate in lobbying activities on bills for which the CLC has taken a position (process described below). The Sierra Club's effectiveness in the state Legislature is a team effort that depends heavily upon a strong grassroots lobby that is well-coordinated with Sierra Club California's Sacramento staff.

Circumstances often change very rapidly in the state Legislature, requiring the Sierra Club to quickly adapt its lobbying approach or change its position on bills. Strategically it is very important that all volunteer lobbying efforts be closely coordinated with Sacramento staff in order to avoid confusion, mis-communication and mixed messages in the Legislature, which can backfire and seriously undermine overall efforts to support or oppose a particular piece of legislation.

Activists often request that we publish a list detailing Sierra Club California's position on all legislation. We do not publish such a list as it quickly becomes dated as the legislation is amended. While Sierra Club California takes positions on many bills, we attempt to focus our lobbying efforts on only a portion of the bills under consideration in the State Legislature. The priority bills can be found on the Sierra Club California Web site (http://www.sierraclubcalifornia.org/).

We know that there are bills beyond those listed on the web site that are important to activists. For the Club's position on a particular bill, please contact Annie Pham at (916) 557-1100 x107 or annie.pham@sierraclub.org.

Decision Making Structure and Process

Under the Sierra Club California bylaws, the California Legislative Committee (CLC) is responsible for deciding the Sierra Club's position on proposed legislation and other matters being considered by the California State Legislature, including appointments by legislative leaders and by the Governor. For complete information on the role and procedures of the CLC, refer to the CLC Standing Rule in the Green Book http://www.sccredbook.org/GreenBook.asp#CLC.

Sierra Club Chapters and Groups that would like the Sierra Club to take a position on a particular state bill should contact Annie Pham in the Sacramento office to find out if the CLC has already taken a position on the bill. If not, Annie will notify the appropriate Sacramento staff person and the CLC Chair of the Chapter's or Group's request. The Chapter or Group should designate a contact person who will act as a liaison between the CLC and the Chapter or Group. The CLC then will consult with the designated Chapter or Group representative, take appropriate action and notify the Chapter or Group representative of the CLC's decision regarding the bill.

Coordination

Once the CLC has taken a position on a bill (through a Chapter or Group request or otherwise), there are two ways for Chapter or Group to help with direct or grassroots lobbying activities.

1. Generate calls and letters — Often Sierra Club California's Sacramento staff or the appropriate representative of the CLC has expressly requested Chapters and Groups to generate calls and letters. This is done through an action alert posted to the Cal Activists List or the personalized email action system (sign up at http://cal-legalert.sierraclubaction.org).

   Other environmental organizations will send action alerts too. Please check with the Sacramento office before generating letters because of requests from other organizations. While those action alerts are usually consistent with our position, sometimes they are not. In addition there may be nuances with respect to message, strategy or targeted legislators, so strategically it is very important to coordinate with the Sacramento office.

2. The Chapter or Group coordinates in advance with Sacramento staff to undertake specific lobbying activities — Direct lobbying activities include direct contacts by Sierra Club volunteers or staff with members of the Legislature and their staff (via telephone calls, letters, postcards, emails, faxes or district meetings), giving testimony in legislative committees, etc., and grassroots lobbying includes such things as phone banking, action alerts, tabling, postcards, etc. encouraging other persons (either Sierra Club volunteers or members of the general public) to contact legislators.

Again for strategic reasons and to increase the effectiveness of local efforts, before undertaking any direct or grassroots lobbying activity on a matter involving the California Legislature, the Chapter or Group must coordinate their activities with the appropriate Sacramento staff person in advance.

Who to Contact

In general it is often hard to immediately reach a lobbyist as they are often out of the office at committee hearings or other legislative business. Therefore, the best first point of contact is the Legislative Aide, Annie Pham

If you would like general information on the status of, or the Sierra Club's position on a particular bill, please contact Annie Pham at (916) 557-1100 x107 or annie.pham@sierraclub.org.

Pacific Lumber Bankruptcy & Sustainable Forestry
by Paul Mason

First, a little background about my relationship to this issue. Before I came to Sierra Club California in 2002, I lived in Humboldt County for about 10 years. For most of that time I worked for the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), an outstanding, aggressive grassroots group that led the charge to protect Headwaters Forest and the various endangered species that live on Pacific Lumber lands. I served on EPIC’s Board of Directors for a decade, and was Executive Director for several years. I’ve been personally involved in at least a dozen lawsuits against Pacific Lumber. In short, I have more than a passing acquaintance with the issue.

Going back to the mid-1990’s, various conservation groups were calling for a “60,000-acre Headwaters Forest”. The idea was that we would permanently protect the six remaining groves of ancient redwoods in the area, and manage the area in between for long-rotation forestry to re-grow big old trees where there are currently clearcuts, but to do sustainable forestry in perpetuity. This proposal was known as the Headwaters Forest Stewardship Plan, and was supported by a broad range of groups from Earth First! to the Sierra Club. You can find a copy of the HFSP on the web at: http://www.treesfoundation.org/publications/publication-4

Fast-forwarding a decade to the current situation, there is still broad agreement that we want to see most of the 210,000 acre Pacific Lumber ownership managed for sustainable forestry. There are a number of areas that should be permanently protected in public ownership, including areas adjacent to Humboldt Redwoods State Park, the remaining stands of ancient redwoods that are protected for endangered species (but are not yet owned by the public), and areas to the north of Headwaters Grove. And there should be no more logging of ancient trees anywhere on the property. But that still leaves a lot of land available for restoration forestry.

And this will be a massive restoration forestry project. We’re not talking about 200,000 acres of healthy forest – it’s 200,000 acres of some of the most brutally hammered redwood forest in the world. Most of the property has been clearcut at some point in the last 20 years, and it’s growing back as a thick, even-age mess. It’s going to take generations of thoughtful selection forestry to re-create a more natural forest with trees of different ages and sizes.

There are also literally thousands of miles of shoddy dirt roads bleeding sediment into the streams, smothering salmon eggs. The amount of road-work necessary is staggering, and the only realistic way to do it is to keep fixing and upgrading the roads as you’re managing the forest.

But to get back to the question of why not a 200,000 acre park, consider:

1. We couldn’t afford to buy the whole thing even if we wanted to. Buying the whole ownership would cost between $500-800 million, then you would have the huge ongoing cost of endless restoration work. You may have noticed that we’re having a hard time keeping the existing parks open, for lack of $13 million. The financing just isn’t feasible.
2. Given the current condition of the landscape, sustainable logging will actually be environmentally beneficial. I know it’s counter-intuitive, but with tens of thousands of acres of dense, even-age, former clearcuts, a bunch of thoughtful thinning will be very beneficial over the next few decades.
3. There are hundreds of people dependant on the timber industry in Humboldt County, and if we can accomplish our conservation goals without hurting vulnerable aspects of the economy, we should. Not only do hundreds of people do the logging and hauling and milling, without that ongoing log supply the mill would have to close. Most of the mills in California have already closed and/or consolidated, and at this point there are only a few mills on the whole North Coast. We don’t want to lose any more mills, because even “good” sustainable foresters need to sell their logs to mills, and when you have to haul your logs 200 miles, it starts to be tough to have small landowners keep their land in rural forest – building McMansions becomes the only viable alternative.
4. Done properly, this can be a model for the rest of the country. While both the Mendocino Redwood Company proposal and the Nature Conservancy proposal would be a vast improvement over the status quo, the Nature Conservancy package is particularly visionary. Boiled down to the simplest points, TNC would buy a conservation easement that permanently prevents any residential development, protects all the old-growth trees, moves the most environmentally sensitive areas to public ownership, and would have a partner (Conservation Forestry LLC) practice sustainable forestry on the rest of the property. In my mind, this is the best of all possible worlds – affordable conservation (around $130 million), long term restoration activities that largely pay for themselves, and stable employment and timber supply in Humboldt County.

Anyhow, that’s a little bit of the context for why no one is focusing on making it a 200,000 acre park. We can accomplish our conservation goals across more of the landscape if we focus on requiring appropriate forestry everywhere, and only buy fee-title of the most sensitive areas.

Stop the EPA's Proposal to Exempt Factory Farms
from Right-to-Know Laws

A new Environmental Protection Agency proposal would exempt factory farms from having to report dangerous releases of toxic chemicals. Though the EPA requires manufacturing facilities to report large releases of harmful chemicals like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, under the new rule factory farms, which release millions of pounds of the same toxic chemicals, will not have to report them.

People who live near these facilities should have the right to know what hazardous chemicals they are being exposed to.

Tell the EPA that Factory Farms should not be exempt from these important laws.

GM Hemorrhages Jobs and Profits

For the past few years, the Incredible Shrinking Three (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) have hemorrhaged jobs and profits as a result of lost market share to foreign competitors such as Toyota and Honda. Remember the tired arguments you’ve heard from the Big 3 that raising fuel economy standards or reducing tailpipe carbon dioxide pollution will cost jobs and profit? Fuel economy standards had stagnated for 30 years up until December 2007 and GM still lost $38 billion in 2007 and cut 40,000 jobs in the past two years!

Members of Congress had heard the same old recycled arguments from automakers that raising fuel economy standards would cost jobs and cut profits. Thankfully, and not a moment too soon, Congress realized the time had come to put an end to the madness and in December raised fuel economy standards from 25 mpg to 35 mpg—a 40% increase.

So what's the next step? California is leading the way in state global warming action by reducing tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions—regulations that 12 additional states (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have already adopted. Unfortunately, EPA Administrator Johnson succumbed to Washington politics and denied California the necessary waiver to implement these standards.

Although all of the major presidential candidates have announced their intention to overturn the decision, you can still do your part for clean cars by giving Johnson a little slap on the wrist.

Three federal courts have now ruled that automakers can economically and technically comply with the clean car standards. With GM losing $38 billion last year, maybe it's time they started listening to Congress, states, and courts, and started producing cleaner cars.

Solar Power, Transmission Lines & GHG
by Larry Hogue

As Kelly Fuller pointed out on her blog (http://kdfuller.blogspot.com), the EIR on the Sunrise Powerlink contained this interesting and surprising sentence (p. ES-25):

“…because total construction GHG emissions exceed the GHG reductions achieved due to avoided power plant emissions over 40 years of transmission line operation, the Proposed Project would cause an overall net increase in GHG emissions and a significant climate change impact.” The EIR also points out that the transmission line will release additional GHGs throughout its 40-year lifespan in the form of sulfur hexafluoride. And this line was supposed to reduce our contribution to global warming!

Could a similar equation be the deal breaker for some of those solar fields proposed for the rest of the California desert?

Questions to ask include:

Do the new solar fields require additional transmission lines, or are they close to existing lines?

How long can a transmission line be before the GHG reductions made possible by the solar fields are outweighed by the increased GHG emissions associated with the new line? (For comparison, the Sunrise Powerlink would be 150 miles long and carry 1000 MW.)

President Bush Honors Sierra Club Work in Alaska

Even President Bush has now recognized the Sierra Club's amazing work in Alaska as part of the Salmon in the City program. The Sierra Club received an award from the President and the Coastal America program for their involvement in the Salmon in the City initiative, which has successfully worked to protect the Pacific salmon that are so important to Alaska's economy and culture.

Defeat for Clean Air
February 20, 2008

The Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners yesterday voted to approve a "clean" trucks program. The port characterized this as a "victory for clean air", but there was not one environmental group that came to the meeting in agreement.

In five hours of public testimony, most of the speakers disagreed. The only speakers who seemed to be in favor of the program were a few from the shipping industry, at least one of which further seemed to reserve its right to sue if the port went to far in implementing the plan.

Community members, students, ministers, truckers and labor advocates spoke against the plan in an crowd that overflowed the board room. Many people who hoped to speak didn't get a chance because they had to leave before the five hour meeting concluded. By far, the largest turnout was from labor. Many trucker drivers gave emotional appeals regarding their working conditions. The South Coast Air Quality Management District also spoke to details of the plan.

A more comprehensive plan is supported by the City of Los Angeles for its port. The Los Angeles plan includes a provision to require truckers to be reclassified as labor. This provision has strong support in Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office, on the Board of Harbor Commissioners and from the port's executive director, Geraldine Knatz.

The labor component also has strong support from Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who had a representative speak in favor of an employee mandate at the hearing. Ray Pok, Long Beach Councilwoman's Tonia Reyes Urganga's chief-of-staff, spoke briefly in favor of an employee mandate on the councilwoman's behalf. Long Beach Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal asked the board to consider the truck drivers' plight and their families, but did not ask the board to include an employee mandate in the plan.

The Sierra Club Harbor Vision Task Force has been seeking a concession-based tenant model and employee mandate since its inception in 2001. We made our first contact with trucking labor in 2002 and reported on the trucking problem in the June 2002 Southern Sierran. We feel that the underlying problems of pollution in the ports and inner cities will never be solved without addressing root causes, one of which is substandard wages and benefits. Livable cities need livable wages and benefits. We are gravely disappointed in Long Beach's actions and believe this action sheds doubt on Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster's commitment to be the greenest mayor around.

The rift between the two cities appears to start with their respective mayors. Antonio Villaraigosa supports a stronger clean trucks program with a labor mandate. However, Bob Foster opposes a labor mandate. The ports and mayors had agreed to work cooperatively on this program until Long Beach's surprise announcement on Friday that they would move on a weaker plan on their own.

The Department of Homeland (In)Security and Friends
by Carl Pope

February 15, 2008, San Francisco—If you didn't already fully grasp just how eager the reactionary right is to take risks with your life and that of your family, for the most absurd and petty reasons, the last two weeks should have been sobering.

On Thursday, two years after the Sierra Club first reported its test results showing that FEMA trailers used to house victims of Hurricane Katrina emitted toxic levels of formaldehyde and were death traps, the Center for Disease Control confirmed these findings. Up until the last minute, FEMA was desperately trying to pretend that it didn't know this already, and that it could continue to house people in these trailers. As recently as two weeks ago, fearing that the CDC study would be manipulated, Reps. Brad Miller (NC) and Nick Lampson (TX), both members of the House Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Julie Gerberding, head of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), saying:

"Documents obtained recently by the [House Science and Technology Committee] make us question whether you used 'best science' or provided 'trusted health information' to some of the nation's most vulnerable citizens, or just provided the evaluation that FEMA preferred."

With good reason. Other documents recently released show that a year ago FEMA knew about the problem from its own review, not just the Sierra Club's initial investigation.

CDC didn't fudge the results. CDC yesterday said people living in 38,000 FEMA trailers need to move before this summer because high heat can cause the wood inside the trailers to emit dangerous levels of formaldehyde gas. Now House Democrats led by Representative Henry Waxman are stepping up their investigations of the scandal, but it's clear that there has been a sustained, conscious, and unconscionable cover up at the ill-named Department of Homeland Security.

But playing games with our lives doesn't stop with trailers, and CDC can no longer be trusted. The Center has been suppressing a 400-page scientific report that documents toxic hot spots threatening the citizens of eight Great Lakes states. CDC also demoted the scientist who prepared the study that found that more than nine million people face health risks from exposure to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, and other toxics. The Center for Public Integrity revealed that the report had been suppressed even though it shows not just potential risks, but that populations in these hot spots are already suffering low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer.

Homeland Security and CDC have company in their assault on public safety. EPA scientists are up in arms because the Agency has proposed to end the regulation of lead as a toxic air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Rogene Henderson, Chair of EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee called the options being proposed by Administrator Steve Johnson "a disaster," saying they lacked scientific basis and were being driven by the lead industry.

And the Consumer Product Safety Commission showed just how determined the Administration is to run out the clock on meeting its obligations to protect the public. After the Sierra Club petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to deal with the problem of lead-tainted jewelry being sold to children, Congress took special action to make sure that CPSC, even though it currently lacks a quorum, could crack down on toxic jewelry. But the Commission deliberately ran out the clock until its special authorization to act on lead hazards without a quorum expired—so that after a year of knowing that American children are being poisoned by toxic products, no safety net has been put in place, and next Christmas could be just as bad as this year.

I'm proud that in three of these cases—toxic trailers, hot spots in the Great Lakes, and the tainted-jewelry scandal—it was the Sierra Club that originally identified the hazard and created the public firestorm. But I'm profoundly upset that, even so, the outgoing Administration is determined to thwart the public demand that someone do something to protect our families. The predatory ideologues that Bush stuffed into federal agencies used to have quasi-adult supervision in the form of Karl Rove—now they see the clock running, and are both trying to leave behind some legacy from their predatory values—and perhaps also looking to find a lucrative landing place after next January by doing a favor, any favor, for one of K Street's toxic special interests.

Can Anyone Spell Cartel?
by Carl Pope

February 19, 2008, Washington, DC—Big Coal has always been nasty and mean. But with its back to the wall, it gets nastier. For years now, natural gas producers have been pointing out the truth that among the fossil fuels, gas is uniquely clean. That's basic chemistry—a molecule of gas has four hydrogen atoms and only one carbon, whereas oil and coal get progressively more dependent on heavier carbon atoms for their energy content, which is why oil is a liquid, and coal a solid—and neither a gas.

Yes, you can produce gas in dirty ways or in the wrong places—but the fuel itself is vastly better than coal or oil, if not as good as efficiency or renewables. And there's nothing new about gas producers pointing this out—you could find ads for "clean gas" decades ago.

But as coal's carbon intensity gets more and more attention with global concern about global warming, coal is suddenly sending not-so-subtle messages to gas producers that if they keep reminding the public of their product's advantages, they can expect some vicious responses. For example, the American Clean Skies Foundation, supported by natural gas producers, ran an ad recently going after our dependence on foreign oil, and touting natural gas as a cleaner fuel for vehicles. They also ran an ad discussing the recent decision by the Department of Energy to cancel a hugely expensive experimental effort to test technology for sequestering carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, the inaptly dubbed "Future Gen" Project. Denise Bode, of American Clean Skies, said "the Department of Energy deserves a round of applause for its well-founded decision to back out of the original agreement for the $1.8 billion FutureGen project. Among the reasons given by DOE officials for 'folding the bet' on the project to develop 'clean' coal-fired generation was that there had been huge cost overruns—it had started with a projected price tag of $800 million."

So who cried foul? ExxonMobil, whose product was really trashed? Nope. The oil industry's not really worried—yet. But coal is. So the National Mining Association, on behalf of its coal mining members, fired off a not even vaguely veiled threat. In a letter to Bode, NMA's CEO, Kraig Naasz, claims that the ads are off base. "Your advertorial is seriously misleading. Whatever reasons may have prompted the Department of Energy to renege on its commitment to the FutureGen project, rising costs is not a compelling one. Escalating costs of manpower and materials that have affected virtually every power project over this period were easily foreseen..."

Since dozens of public utilities have been canceling power plants because they said their rising costs had NOT been foreseen, and have assured their shareholders that these impacts COULD NOT have been foreseen, one wonders just where NMA stores its crystal ball. I imagine we would all like a look at it. And if cost overruns were not DOE's real reason for canceling Future Gen, what did motivate them? Was it that they concluded the technology wouldn't work, period? Or are we expected to believe that Dick Cheney has suddenly joined the Sierra Club in a secret conspiracy to deprive America of its God-given right to burn coal?

More importantly, NMA rattles their sabers—and, in doing so, reveals an ugly truth that almost everyone in Washington knows but which it is not politically correct to mention in polite company. NMA accuses Bode and Clean Skies of breaking the unwritten cartel agreement among energy producers:

"As a diatribe against coal utilization and research, it marks a disturbing departure from the understanding we tacitly share in the energy sector to avoid denigrating competing fuels. Doing so enrages policymakers, distracts attention from our common goal of increasing supplies of every fuel to meet America's growing energy needs and invites public rebuttals from competing fuel producers. The interests of natural gas producers will not be enhanced in such an environment..."

Here NMA is telling part of the truth. Historically, the American energy market has been a narrowly controlled cartel in which producers might try to grab contracts from each other by underbidding on price, but when it came to public policy, they all ganged up on the public interest. And now natural gas is breaking away and finding its own voice, and Big Coal is very, very—well, enraged is the word that comes to mind.

This is not the first time the coal industry has threatened that if natural gas producers keep pointing out that they have a better product for the environment, then coal will use its political connections to take retribution. I've heard these stories on the Hill for the past six months. But now they are putting it in writing, yet another sign of their desperation.

Adam Smith would not be surprised. He always said that competition, real competition, was not something that businesses mostly really liked. But it's good news for all of us that the fuel cartel is breaking apart, and that a new constellation of energy sources and approaches that can contribute to solving global warming—each in its own way—is beginning to emerge.

But everybody better watch their back. DC is full of dark alleys.

It's Green Jobs, Stupid
by Carl Pope

February 29, 2008, San Francisco—Gasoline will hit $4 a gallon soon. Millions of mortgage holders face foreclosure and the usual nostrums from the Federal Reserve Board aren't working. Everyone thinks we are headed for a recession because consumers can't keep spending if their wages have stagnated and their houses are depreciating.

People are looking for some quick fixes, some pixie dust, some magic potions—perhaps even some snake oil. But the exciting—if frustrating—thing is that a fix has been right at hand all along.

We need to accelerate the shift to a green economy and focus on making sure that, as we create it, we generate good, green jobs at the same time.

If Congress had raised fuel-economy standards a decade ago, we would be using much less gasoline to get to work—and the price of oil would never have hit $100 a barrel. Yes, Detroit would have had to hire hundreds of thousands of workers to modernize its auto plants—but it wouldn't instead be shutting them down.

In Sunday's New York Times Business Section, Alan Binder proposed to revive a New Deal Federal Agency, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, to buy out defaulting mortgages from the banks at their fair value, then refinance them for the home owners. Binder's idea has been endorsed by Senator Chris Dodd and others, and it sounds like a good one—but he should consider adding a wrinkle. In exchange for having the government help them stay in their houses, homeowners should have to retrofit them for energy efficiency—with capital loaned by the same agency. Their utility bills would drop dramatically, increasing the odds that they would be able to make their mortgage payments—and millions of new building trades jobs and manufacturing jobs would be created producing and installing the news windows, insulation, furnaces, etc. (You can't outsource the job of installing windows on your house.)

At a meeting Tuesday of the Apollo Alliance, whose main focus is green jobs, people pointed out how crazy it is that once again this winter we are spending billions of dollars helping low-income families pay their heating bills, when for the same amount of money we could have helped them permanently reduce their bills to an affordable level with energy retrofits. It turns out that three percent of our building stock is either rebuilt or substantially remodeled each year; if we could ensure that all of those were efficient, and retrofitted another three percent a year, within 11 years every house and commercial building in America would be modernized, while millions of Americans would have had good jobs on the project.

The new Congressional leadership gets it. The House yesterday voted 236-182 to keep the solar and wind industries alive by extending their tax credits. But almost no one is certain that the Senate can muster 60 votes to overcome the filibuster that thus far has blocked this effort, even though these industries could become huge new job machines for the American economy. In fact, the White House is threatening to veto the bill to protect huge subsidies for the oil industry, which is exporting jobs to the Middle East rather than creating them here at home.

So we have a lot of public education to do. The Sierra Club, Apollo, and the United Steelworkers are sponsoring a major conference in Pittsburgh in March, designed to launch the green jobs revolution. This could be one of the most important steps we take this year—its very clear that the economy is going to be the focus of this year's elections, and that green jobs are the key to fixing the economy.

Common Sense in Houston
by Carl Pope

February 29, 2008, Houston—This was originally going to be a Presidential debate on energy, cosponsored by the Sierra Club Foundation and the Greater Houston Partnership, largely comprised of energy companies. But in the end, only Senator Hilary Clinton agreed to appear, so it became a forum instead. The first panel—emphasizing production—featured an amusing comment from an oil executive, who explained that Americans didn't want to drill the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because they believed it was full of snowy mountains, and that they thought that way because "California environmentalists control the media." I had to reassure the audience that, unfortunately, the Sierra Club's hostile takeover bids for the New York Times and CNN had been rebuffed, and that while we told the media our story, we didn't, alas, control them.

But that was really the only nonsense. One star, for my money, was the Mayor of Houston, Bill White, who simply laid it on the line, talked about how Houston, a Sierra Club Cool City, was making outstanding progress savings its taxpayers money by reducing its carbon emissions, and if Houston could do it, well, then so could anyone. White also told a revealing story as he lamented that Congress had passed a weak 35-mpg improvement in fuel-efficiency standards instead of the achievable 50 mpg we needed. He, it turns out, was the Congressional staffer member who back in 1975 wrote the language instructing the Department of Transportation to set a separate standard for pickup trucks, making it very clear it should affect "...pickup trucks, working vehicles—only when the lawyers and lobbyists got it later and twisted it did it become SUVs."

Hilary Clinton did a fabulous job, challenging the oil companies "to become energy companies" and lead America towards cleaner energy sources. But she didn't kowtow, also telling her largely oil audience," I do not believe that now is the time when subsidies for the oil companies are necessary and appropriate.... It is now time to subsidize new forms of energy." She described energy progress to date as a series of half steps.

She upped White on CAFE, promising to raise fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030. She also called for a Green Building Fund to invest $1 billion per year in energy-efficient public buildings, which would create 40,000 jobs in Texas, and said she would promote affordable loans for families wanting to make their homes more energy efficient.

When I spoke, I focused on the need to get rid of barriers to a higher performance, efficient economy by unleashing innovation. "Only in the energy sector," I said, "does the oldest stuff make the most money."

Speaking right before me was McKinsey consultant Scott Nyquist, who made the point that we can, indeed, cut our carbon dependence and make money doing so. McKinsey found that at least half of the measures we need for green energy are good investments at today's prices— and that a carbon price, whether through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax—will still not be enough by itself to achieve the efficiency gains we need. We'll need regulations to fix market failure.

But however sensible things were inside the Forum, outside the craziness continues. While Mayor White is pushing hard for new building-efficiency standards that will save owners and tenants a bundle of money on utility bills—the big developers are pushing back hard, and the battle lines of the past still stay—sadly—in place.

Resolution Passed by ExComm (February 24, 2008)

The Sierra Club opposes the current County version of the Santa Monica Mountains Unincorporated LCP (local coastal program) and supports a strong LCP comparable to or stronger than the Malibu LCP.

Proposed Resolution: Camp Bloomfield Oaks

The Santa Monica Mountains Task Force requests the Angeles Chapter to adopt the following resolution:

“The Angeles Chapter opposes plans of Camp Bloomfield to remove 25 oaks and encroach on 56 more in an oak and riparian ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) and fill portions of a steelhead spawning stream in order to widen the road serving Camp Bloomfield in the Santa Monica Mountains.”

Argument for:

The Foundation for the Junior Blind operates Camp Bloomfield immediately upstream from Leo Carrillo State Park. The Foundation has already done construction on the property, allegedly without County and Coastal permits, and has been served with a Notice of Violation by the Coastal Commission. Violations have included channelizing a portion of Arroyo Sequit Creek and removal of oak trees and other major vegetation.

Arroyo Sequit arises at over 3000’ elevation and descends to the ocean through a remarkably unspoiled canyon, largely owned by State Parks and the National Park Service. Water quality in the creek is exceptionally good. Arroyo Sequit still supports a spawning run of the “southern evolutionary unit” of the steelhead (Onorynchus Mykiss), declared an endangered species in 1999. Streams accessible to steelhead west of Malibu Canyon—including Arroyo Sequit—have been designated “critical habitat”.

State and federal park officials, California Fish and Game, and the National Marine Fisheries Service have all verified the existence of spawning steelhead in Arroyo Sequit above and below Camp Bloomfield.

Some experts believe it is the “southern evolutionary unit” which is the progenitor of all steelhead in the North Pacific. It has an ability to tolerate warmer water temperatures than other steelhead, making it possibly the key to survival of the entire species in the face of Global Warming.

Arguments against:

• Camp Bloomfield is owned and operated by the Foundation for the Junior Blind. The Sierra Club’s image in the community could be badly damaged if it appears to be attacking a camp for blind children.
• Widening the access road to 25’ is being required by the Fire Department, which claims it is essential to widen the road to make possible the safe evacuation of children from the camp in case of a brush fire.

Newcomer/Member Information Events
Discover the Sierra Club… In your neighborhood!

• Come and learn all about the Sierra Club and the many activities and adventure outings available.
• Meet the leaders of LA & OC Sierra Singles, Sierra Sage, OC Group, Wilderness Travel, 20’s/30’s, Natural Science, Hundred Peaks, Mule Pack and many others.
• Table Displays, Exhibits, Refreshments, Free Drawing.
• Join the Sierra Club at the $25 Introductory rate. Receive a free gift!
• Chapter Membership Co-Chairs: Mary Morales & Donna Specht
• Bring a friend!

Monday, March 17, 2008, 7:45 pm
Community Room, Burton Chace Park, 13650 Mindanao Way, Marina del Rey, 90292
Marina Fwy (90) to Mindanao Way, left on Mindanao past Lincoln and past Admiralty Way to its end.
Contact info: Joe Young, 310-822-9676, joengeri@ca.rr.com (www.angeles.sierraclub.org/airportmarina)

Monday, May 5, 2008 6:30-9 pm
Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community.Center, 1845 Park Avenue, Costa Mesa,
Contact info: Donna Specht, 714-963-6345, donnaspecht@juno.com (www.angeles.sierraclub.org/ocss)

Thursday, June 26, 2008, 6:30 pm
Los Angeles Zoo, (Grand Room) Griffith Park.
Park in zoo main parking lot. Enter at Security office, main entrance. Tell guard Sierra Club, follow signs.
Contact Info: Jeanne Karpenko, 818-244-0733, jkarpenko@earthlink.net (www.angeles.sierraclub.org/singles)

Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 7 pm
Peninsula Center Community Room, Palos Verdes Peninsula Library
701 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates
Contact Info: Keith Martin, 310-530-1268, keithwmartin@sbcglobal.net, (www.angeles.sierraclub.org/pvsb)

Monday, August 11, 2008, 6:30-9 pm
Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community.Center, 1845 Park Avenue, Costa Mesa,
Contact info: Donna Specht, 714-963-6345, donnaspecht@juno.com, (www.angeles.sierraclub.org/ocss)

Saturday, September 13, 2008 1-4 pm
Eaton Canyon Nature Center, 1750 North Altadena Dr, Pasadena
Contact Info: Don Bremner, 626-794-2603, donbremner@earthlink.net, (www.angeles.sierraclub.org/pasadena)