PG&E Greenwash Threatens to Contradict Itself

The California energy company, Pacific, Gas & Electric is out to help protect your voting rights, or so this ad would make it appear. However, the Yes on Prop 16 campaign masks the private utility company's effort to thwart local governments at a state level from exploring the economic viability of creating municipal energy solutions, thus actually eliminating local control.

Last month, the CA Attorney General staff's determined that the name of the proposition was misleading, and it renamed the proposition the "New Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Electricity Providers". Despite the redubbing, this PG&E sponsored ad, as of today, continues to run on the NYTimes website, amongst other places.

Capitalizing on the anti-tax sentiment, creators of Proposition 16 purports to do one thing:

It requires voter approval before local governments can spend public money or incur public debt to get into the electricity business. And like most other major local special tax and bond decisions in California, this would require two-thirds voter approval.

Opponents to the corporate backed Prop 16, "New Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Electricity Providers"which includes former Energy Commissioner John Geesman, Assemblyman Mark Leno, and the League of Women Voters, assert that PG&E is trying to secure a monopoly on energy production in the state, not provide voters' right.

PG&E's board has authorized spending up to $35 million on this initiative. However, the local governments, municipal utilities, and irrigation districts targeted by this misleading Proposition are prohibited by law from spending anything to oppose it.

Former California Energy Commissioner, John Geesman wrote on his blog:

California's investor-owned utilities face a Himalayan task in modernizing our electricity system and building the infrastructure necessary to serve a growing economy. They ought to focus on that, rather than manipulating the electorate to kneecap their few competitors. Has there ever been a time when we needed greater downward pressure on electricity rates?

Several municipalities in California have successfully led shifts to municipal power, including Alameda County, Sacramento, Trinity Counties, Pasadena, and Sebastopol.

To date, PG&E has fought off communities attempting to consider municipal owned utilities one at a time. This effort at a statewide level is seen as a direct attack against movements in both San Francisco and Marin Counties, as well as other communities. In the recent past, San Francisco put forward several measures but PG&E grossly outspent the grassroots effort and the measure failed to pass. However, that has not dimmed the hopes of the municipal power activists, prompting PG&E's umbrella initiative effort.

For more information:
PG&E Powergrab
"Measure Protects PG&E, not Taxpayers," Redding.com
Sierra Club
Yes on Prop 16
PG&E vs. Democracy

Greenpeace and Supervisor Take Off Gloves to Fight Global Warming

San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who champions many city-based green initiatives, most notably the ban on plastic bags in San Francisco, spoke at City Hall on May 27 where Greenpeace presented a new report that showed the green-leaning state of California is still a leading emitter of global warming pollution. After the press conference, the organizers marched over to the office of House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi to deliver 30,000 petitions urging Congress to implement stronger measures to prevent global warming.

Calling the situation “urgent” in this video, Mirkarimi gave a rallying cry to Californians to reduce our carbon footprint. “California is the poster child for what is not going right in terms of carbon emissions, the Supervisor said. "It is our responsibility socially, culturally, philosophically, feduciarily and environmentally that we lead the pack.”



State Assemblyman Tom Ammanio provided a statement calling for leadership from Congress. “Despite California's efforts, we are still ranked second in the nation for the highest amount of global warming emissions. Giving lip service to renewable energy or simply talking green will not be enough – we need strong committed leadership that will call for significant reductions and progressive environmental standards. This report should act as a wake-up call to all of us.”

The America's Share of the Climate Crisis report released by Greenpeace reveals that California emitted more global warming pollution from fossil fuel consumption between 1960 and 2005 than 170 of the 184 countries studied. The report also finds that the US:

• exceeds all other nations in cumulative emissions since 1960, accounting for nearly 26 per cent of all the global warming pollution emitted in that period.
• emitted more CO2 than 171 of 184 countries combined.
• in California alone produces 6.7 times higher emissisons than China and 60 times more than Kenya.

The Greenpeace report states that despite President Obama's calls for stronger climate legislation and $80 billion of economic stimulus funds to develop clean, renewable energy, these measures fall short of meeting the requirements necessary to avert a climate catastrophe.

Earlier this month, Greenpeace called out these "conservative" Democrats for supporting the whittling away of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) to relieve dirty energy providers of a capital crunch that would otherwise likely kill the coal-energy industry.

Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford issued the following statement:

“Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state. We call on President Obama and leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a bill, based on science, which presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally.”

One of the chief concerns that critics of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) have is that it gives legacy energy providers, such as coal, 60 per cent of the money generated in a carbon market compared to the 18 percent allotted to renewable providers such as wind and solar. This higher allowance to traditional energy providers disincentivize a quicker shift to renewable energy from a monetary point-of-view.

We are actually pretty worried about it,” says Matt Cheney, CEO of Renewable Venture. “It’s basically saying that by virtue of having polluted you now have the right to pollute in the new cap and trade program,” Cheney says.

According to the graph below, amendments to the ACES have had a coincidentally beneficial impact on the stock prices of the coal industry, as this graph show.




Links:

• America's Share of the Climate Crisis Report
• Aces Low for the Solar Industry
• Critique of Waxman-Markey Climate Bill
• Coal Stocks Surge Mirrors Climate Bill Concessions
  

Redford Speaks Out on Bush's Attack on Environmental Protection Regulations

The Goode Family Primes for Prime-Time

Mike Judge, creator of King of the Hill and Beavis and Butt-head will introduce a new family this next television season, The Goode Family.

The Goode Family is, you guessed it, green and PC. Here's a rundown of their characters:

“Mr. Goode or Gerald Goode is an administrator at a community college. He comes from a long line of overeducated academic liberals. Helen Goode is Gerald’s wife, a local activist who someday dreams of becoming an activist. They have a adopted son Ubuntu, who is from Africa. They have a biological daughter named Bliss. She often disagrees with her parents and sometimes pokes some holes in their worldviews. They have a dog who is also vegan. He craves meat and often tries to eat other pets in the neighborhood.”

Does this parody mean that being seriously Green has hit critical mass?

San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi Asserts Cost Value of Studying Publicly Owned Utilities

San Francisco Supervisors Redress Smear Flier from Polidoc on Vimeo.

At a press conference held on Tuesday July 22 in front of San Francisco City Hall, some city officials defended a proposed charter amendment which would allow for a feasibility study on the city ownership of all utilities.

City Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Aaron Peskin, Tom Amiano, Bevon Duffy, Assemblyman Mark Leno and former PUC chief Susan Leal rebuked the assertions made in a flier distributed last week that suggested that the supervisors were irresponsible and out for a power grab.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi asserted that the charter amendment , "Is not a hostile take over. This is not a $4 billion grab. What this mandates is a feasibility study to determine how San Francisco should share the drivers seat and in how we can deliver 100 per cent Green and clean renewable energy over the next 25 years. We know that the technology is there; we know that the capacity is there. But we are also well reminded of the hurdles that are there, certainly because of the franchise that PG&E has in perpetuity - in other words they have a monopoly here until planet Earth dies."

"This legislation includes taking back what is ours - what the rate payers paid for, " said former PUC chief, Susan Leal. "We need to get out from under the grips of a monopoly that has not allowed the expansion of renewable energy as it should be in this city."

"The glacial pace at which our federal government has moved and our state governments have moved, despite their best intentions, only deflects to the responsibility of smart municipal governments," Mirkarimi continued. "There are over 900 cities in the United States which have opted by the vote of the people to decide that they want to chart their own energy destiny, either through complete municipalization or some reconfiguration. We are not even approaching the embryo of that consideration. "

California's publicly owned utilities serving retail load include the Cities of Alameda, Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Biggs, Colton, Corona, Glendale, Gridley, Healdsburg, Hercules, Industry, Lodi, Lompoc, Los Angeles, Moreno Valley, Needles, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Redding, Riverside, Roseville, Santa Clara, Shasta Lake, Ukiah, Victorville, Vernon; the Lassen and Sacramento Municipal Utility Districts; the Imperial Merced, Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts; and the Truckee Donner Public Utility Districts.

San Francisco Supervisor Mirkarimi Rebuffs PG&E Attack

Luke Thomas of Fog City Journal, San Francisco posted this short and sweet video interview with Green Party member and Supervisor, Ross Mirkarimi. In the video, he responds to PG&E's attack on a bill up for vote this Tuesday to do a feasibility study on Public Ownership of the Utilities in the cit by the Bay. He says that the PG&E flyer intends to instill fear in voters who would in turn apply pressure on supervisors to vote the study down. Mirkarimi cites that the nine municipalities who do have a publicly owned utility supply its customers with cheaper energy, something that a monopoly power company just might not want citizens to consider for very long.

Former Green wins upset victory in Republican Montana US Senate primary

After years of absorbing Republican led tax relief programs for out-of-state corporations and absentee land owners, Butte, Montana's Republican voters are ready for a Green leaning Republican. Fiscally conservative and locally fixated, this is where the Greens and state focused Republicans meet.

Bob Kelleher has run as both a Democrat and a Green in the past. His support of gun-control is a little out of step with the state's Republicans, but his emphasis on local control and local care holds interest for the working class of Montana. He goes up against Democratic incumbent Max Baucus, a five-term U.S. Senator who had more than $6 million in the bank in May and has raised more than $10 million since he was last re-elected in 2002. Kelleher criticizes Baucus for not challenging Bush on his tax cuts or at least bringing something home for social services.

The Great Falls Tribune ran the results yesterday. With less than $5000 in his pocket, he'd have to do some amazing grassroots dancing to be seen or heard.

According to Ballot Access News, Kelleher, an attorney sued the Montana University System in 2004 for excluding Libertarian and Green nominees from the Gubernatorial race debate. The case lost in Montana Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear it. Kelleher was the Green Party nominee in that election, but he modestly named the lawsuit Jones v Montana University System, placing the Libertarian nominee first in the caption. Kelleher polled 1.88% of the vote for Governor as the Green nominee in 2004. He had been the Green nominee for U.S. Senate in 2002, polling 2.34%.Greens lost ballot access after 2004, forcing Kelleher to forge a path amongst the major two parties.

For more on the story:
Kelleher's website
Great Falls Tribune: "Kelleher wins Upset Victory in Republican US Senate Primary"
Daily Show (2002): Story on Green vs. Libertarian candidates

Candidates Perform Green Dance to Garner Gore's Favor

Former Vice-President, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and last but not least, Academy Award winning Al Gore's superdelegate endorsement is the prettiest girl at the dance. Hoping to monopolize that dance card at the Democratic Nominating Convention, Senators Clinton and Obama are talking up Green initiatives.

Nice tight article here from MSNBC with the hopeful conclusion that, regardless of who becomes President, the whole world is expecting a big shift in the United States Energy Policy.

read more | digg story