Heart of Green

Rock the Vote

I rarely discuss politics on Heart of Green but occasionally I just can’t help myself.  Now is one of those times.

In San Francisco on November 4, I strongly urge everyone to get out and vote first and foremost (rock the vote!), and while you are there, please consider voting No on Proposition H – the hostile takeover of PG&E. Yes, hostile. As crazy as it might sound, our local Board of Supervisors is proposing a $4 Billion unsolicited public takeover of our local gas and electric utility. This is a very bad idea for at least the following seven reasons:

1. We don’t have $4 Billion to spend right now

2. Do we really want to give the Board of Supervisors the right to issue bonds in the future to takeover all public utilities (electric, gas, phone, Internet) without voter approval?  Um, no.

3. We don’t want our energy bills to increase $400 a year

4. No offense to anyone, but the Board of Supervisors seems unqualified to run an energy utility, prevent blackouts, keep the lights (CFLs) on, and lead us into the clean energy century. Think about the Muni bus system for example. Enough said.

5. Proposition H is not about what is best for San Francisco. It is an ideological power grab, and a dangerous one.

6. The Board of Supervisor members behind Proposition H support socialized power, not renewable energy.  They recently voted to build a new fossil fuel burning and polluting power plant in Potrero Hill.

7. Proposition H will not lead to a cleaner and greener city. There is no guarantee that the energy will be clean. They tried to call it a "Clean Energy Act" on the ballot but were legally barred because it was not true. PG&E is a leading solar power utility in the country and earned the 2007 Solar Portfolio Leadership award from the Solar Electric Power Association.

Renewables:  PG&E is on track to meet the aggressive renewable energy portfolio goals set by the state of California for 2010.  PG&E’s power mix is currently 14% renewable, 17% large hydroelectric and 22% natural gas.  I have studied this issue in depth and have come to the conclusion that it is very easy to say "increase renewables to 100%" and very difficult to do this in practice.  We need significant federal and state investment incentives for transmission and storage technology to make this happen. For example, wind blows mostly at the wrong time, at night when less energy is needed, and we have no way of storing it currently. PG&E can invest in large solar thermal plants in the desert which they are doing, but then how do we bring the energy from the desert to San Francisco?  New transmission lines are needed to achieve radical increases in renewable energy. That said, we should be pursuing the transition from dirty fossil fuel energy to renewables as fast as possible in the spirit of Google's clean energy plan.

As Supervisor Carmen Chu says, “As a city, our priorities need to be solving the budget crisis and keeping our parks clean and our streets safe. Spending $4 billion on a power system takeover is the wrong priority.”

So let’s give Proposition H the heave-ho. Let’s keep the lights on, the renewable energy plans on track, the greenhouse gases in check, and the money in the residents’ pockets. Let’s not right a blank check to the SF Board of Supervisors. Please vote No on Proposition H. See also the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial An electrified risk: Reject Prop H

And while you are there, please consider voting Yes on Proposition 2 to help stop cruel animal farming and support family farmers. The web site www.ecovote.org also has some excellent analysis and recommendations on many ballot measures. www.rockthevote.org

Natural Legacies Gala

Call me a dork but I like to vote. Receiving my voter pamphlet in the mail this weekend reminded me how lucky we are to be able to vote and how much voting matters. Or rather, how much policy can matter. The right policy.

With the flip of a switch, elected officials can give tax breaks to oil companies, or rescind them. They can create incentives for solar power and spur whole new clean energy industries like Germany did. They can ban dangerous chemicals and toxins from our products, or turn a blind eye. They can raise fuel economy standards to 40 mpg levels so that we no longer have to import any oil from the Middle East and use associated military might. And they can pass bills like the Wilderness Act and create land and marine reserves for generations to come. We note that the Grand Canyon had to be saved from flooding by a proposed dam.

This is why I was so excited to receive an invitation to the upcoming California League of Conservation Voters annual Environmental Leadership Awards Gala. It is entitled Natural Legacies and will be a celebration of individuals and organizations who are true conservation heroes. Exploiting natural resources for profit is easy. Saving pristine places from sprawling development is hard work. I am thrilled to see a whole night dedicated to conservation legacies.

California League of Conservation Voters
26th Annual Environmental Leadership Awards Gala
Natural Legacies

WHEN:
Friday, May 9, 2008
6:00 pm Cocktail Reception
7:00 pm Dinner & Awards Program

WHERE:
Hyatt Regency
5 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco

FEATURING:

• Keynote Speaker: The Honorable Leon Panetta
• Steve McCormick, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation and The Nature Conservancy
• Michael Mantell, Resources Law Group
• Julie Packard, Monterey Bay Aquarium, David and Lucile Packard Foundation 

RSVP:
800.755.3224, ext. 305
www.ecovote.org/conserve/

The gala will honor three visionary conservationists: Steve McCormick, Michael Mantell, and Julie Packard. These environmental leaders have preserved natural treasures across California and the world. This is sure to be an uplifting night filled with unrestrained applause and hope.

If I had a billion dollars, this would be my dream. To save and help restore forests, wetlands, river canyons, open spaces, and endangered animals for future generations to explore, enjoy, and cherish.

p.s. For time-strapped California voters, the CLCV recommends a No vote on Proposition 98 and a Yes vote on Proposition 99. When it comes to the always mind-binding eminent domain issues, I do what they say because the CLCV researches in depth and is the guru of all things green on the ballot. The out-of-state property rights extremists are at it again. They spend millions of dollars to put these dangerous eminent domain props on the ballot. They sound good in the one sentence, but in reality they would erode environmental protection for clean air and water, compromise local land planning, and eliminate rent control. Don’t these guys have anything else to do?  Imagine the land they could save if they put those millions into creating a natural legacy. Maybe we can invite them to the gala on May 9.  www.ecovote.org

There is a national League of Conservation Voters too!  www.lcv.org

Follow the Green

Who has raised the most money in the exciting and nail-biting Presidential campaign so far?  A new cool widget from the award-winning Money and Politics mashup MAPLight lets you follow the money up close. It updates automatically at the end of every month. Now that is the kind of widget I like.

Looking at this data makes me wonder a few things. Does the candidate who raises the most money automatically win?  Should they or not?  I don't think it should be all about the money. Second, should it cost this much money to run for office. And where does all of this money go. What is the opportunity cost of this money?  And who is hoping for an unspoken in when the campaign is over?  See www.maplight.org for more intriguing links between money and politics.

We, the individuals and the companies, are often asked to pay for these campaigns out of our own pockets, and the contributions are not tax-deductible. Imagine if a number of TV ads were free to presidential candidates who met a certain threshold. Imagine if these hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in schools, in the environment, in our country instead of in media ads.

Some people tell me that public financing for public elections will never work because if you create a rule, the special interest money will just pop up in another place and be even harder to track. I don't think that should stop us. Clean elections are working well in Arizona and Maine. See Public Campaign and the Public Campaign Action Fund for more mouth-watering details about the future of clean elections around the country. Imagine if elected officials could spend less time fundraising and more time governing for the people by the people. Let's dream this dream.

Who is the best presidential candidate on the environment?  Let's look at the records. Here are some eye-opening links:

Grist Compare the Candidates - Grist goes the green political distance

League of Conservation Voters National Scorecard - how is it possible that John McCain received a 0% score in 2007 for missing every environmental vote, including a critical one on repealing tax breaks for oil companies (they need tax breaks?) where he would have been the decider.

CLCV California Environmental Scorecard 2007 which shows the average Assembly Republican score of 5% pro-green and the average Assembly Democrat score of 94% pro-green. Is the environment really still such a partisan issue?  We have to get beyond this to create a green economy and sustainable future for all.

CLCV Candidates Positions on Global Warming with enlightening answers by two big names. I see pledges of an 80% target reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Now that is straight talk I like.

Let's follow the green all the way to the big office. And I don't mean money.

Heart of Green is a nonpartisan, independent web site focused on all things green.

15 Minutes of Flame

Let’s give some love to our icy round friends at the North and South Poles, the snowmen.

The snowmen are taking a lot of heat this week.

First Mitt Romney said that he didn’t want to participate in a CNN/YouTube debate because “I think the presidency ought to be held to a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.”

Here is the snowman’s response to that!

Then the San Francisco Chronicle editorial page editor got into the act by saying the Democratic candidates had to endure “the little indignity of having to respond to the cartoonish snowman.”

I am happy the snowman is getting his day in the sun. The snowman's original question to the candidates was “I've a growing concern that global warming, the single most important issue to the snowmen of this country, is being neglected. What will you do to ensure that my son will live a full and happy life?” Ok, so his voice is a little squeaky, but the question about global warming is right on pitch.

I say let’s give the redwood trees a question too. And the endangered turtles. Don’t tempt me, I just might submit a question from a polar bear. 

Let’s hear one from the birds caught in the San Francisco Bay oil spill: “My fellow feathered friends would like to know how we can buy more gifts locally, instead of importing goods on boats powered by bunker fuel.”

Nature cannot whip out its webcam and post on YouTube. That is why we have to speak for her or him. Nature does give us signs, like the Arctic ice melting, that speak as loudly as any high-def TV with surround sound. I wonder whom the snowman is voting for in the primaries on February 5th?

Voting Party in Spanish Suite

On the heels of the Fourth of July holiday, join us at this patriotically glamorous party for Voto Latino at the Clift Hotel’s Spanish Suite with actress Rosario Dawson, Mayor Gavin Newsom, and more.

Headed up by Maria Teresa Petersen, Voto Latino is the incredible organization that inspires young people to get involved in democracy through media and mobile technology - and to vote, vote, vote!

Voto Latino Party

WHEN:
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
6–7pm: VIP Reception
7-9pm: General Reception & Party

WHERE:
Clift Hotel, Spanish Suite
495 Geary Street, San Francisco

FEATURING:

• Actress Rosario Dawson & Mayor Gavin Newsom
• Delicious Wines
• Sneak Preview of new VL Voices
• Cocktail Party in the Spanish Suite
• DJ Anthony Mansfield

HONORARY HOSTS:
The Honorable Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Mayor Gavin Newsom
Actress & Co-Founder Rosario Dawson

HOST COMMITTEE:
Councilwoman Nora Campos, Josh Becker, Elmy Bermejo, Gwyneth Borden, Sandy Close, Brandon Hernandez, Hala Hijazi, Doug Mandell, Clarissa Nicosia, Christine Pelosi, Maria Teresa Petersen, Claudia Ross, Nicole Rivera, Nadine Weil

TICKETS:
General $150
VIP $1,000
All proceeds benefit the nonprofit Voto Latino and go towards inspiring young people to vote.

INVITATION:
View Party Invitation

CO-SPONSORS:
Voto Latino thanks their generous sponsors including:
PG&E, Alta Vista Financial, HP, Clift Hotel, and Cross Marketing

ABOUT VOTO LATINO:
Winner of the Gold Promax award & nominated for the Imagen Award, Voto Latino enfranchises the next generation of Americans by leveraging media, celebrity voices, and the latest technologies to encourage civic participation.  www.votolatino.org

Speaker Green

The big question these days seems to be: is the federal government doing anything concrete to stop global warming or not? 

We hear often that California is leading and that the fed is doing nothing. It is true that the golden state is an eco-star. But is our nation’s capital only blowing hot air into a green bubble?

Within Heart of Green, I have tried to stay away from politics. My goal has been to try to elevate green into the realm of universality. However, one cannot deny forever the connection between the environment and politics. Our infrastructure, energy, land development, and food supply have all been influenced and $$-subsidized by the policy ghosts of governments past.

Consider these hopeful examples. Republican President Richard Nixon rang in the New Year in 1970 by signing the National Environmental Policy Act and creating the EPA. Earth Day was also founded in 1970 on Nixon’s watch. Although Republican President Reagan like to patronize the Earth, he did ratify the international Montreal Protocol treaty in 1987 to curb CFCs and protect the stratospheric ozone layer. Note that Republican Secretary of State George Schultz was instrumental in this treaty. It is possible to solve a global environmental problem (like global warming) with political tools and corporate innovation. The ozone layer proves it.

A modern shade of green is back in the political sphere. As we fight global warming, we gain energy independence, and vice-versa. Imagine not having to be tied to unstable Middle East regions for oil. “Green is the new red, white, and blue,” says renowned columnist Thomas Friedman.

So what is the federal government doing about global warming and energy dependence? Let’s focus for a moment on the actions of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or shall we call her, Speaker Green.

Speaker Pelosi recently returned from a bipartisan Congressional delegation to Greenland and Europe. “The purpose of our visit was to see firsthand the adverse environmental and economic impacts of global warming and to meet with foreign leaders who are taking action to address one of the greatest challenges of our time. The science is undeniable – as is the urgency with which we must act.”

On their trip, they witnessed the accelerated melting of the Greenland ice cap (drip, drip, crash) and learned that “the amount of ice breaking off in two days is enough fresh water for New York City for one full year.” 

The delegation met with an impressive list of European leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel (head of the G-8) and Prince Charles’ Corporate Leaders for Climate Change. Another stop was Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the influential Stern Report. He recommended that we invest just 1% of our global gross domestic product now to solve global warming, rather than waiting and causing climate change to shrink the global economy by 20% later.

As a result of these meetings, Speaker Pelosi and many others are now advocating for mandatory, market-based strategies to cut global warming pollution. Emphasis on the word mandatory. If the goals are simply voluntary or aspirational, they won’t cut it. Certain businesses will still cheat. And the businesses that do try to fix the planet and curtail their CO2 emissions will be put at an unfair economic disadvantage relative to the polluters, unless consumers shun them of course.

It is important to place an economic value on carbon so that it can be integrated into corporate financial accounting. If national cap-and-trade is implemented, then businesses will have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to reduce CO2 emissions because those reductions will be worth money. And polluting will cost money.

The delegation heard loud and clear that businesses like certainty. Create a market for cleantech in which they can invest and operate. Reduce risk. Per the Speaker, “One message that we received over and over again is that the industries of Europe are embracing this [greenhouse gas reductions]. And they want it to be mandatory and not voluntary. They want to know what their goals have to be. And then they will be able to invest in the new technologies.”

Once there is certainty, capital will gravitate to cleantech. A boom in green jobs and clean innovations will follow. The winning cleantech solutions will have a global comparative advantage and will be exportable to other nations. Do we really want China to develop all of these CO2 solutions before us? And with our trade deficit at an all-time high, we could use some green goods to export. The value of the dollar would be grateful. And think of how many U.S. Green Collar Jobs could be created.

So back to the central question – what is the Speaker and others under her leadership doing to address global warming and oil dependence? Here is the rundown of activities that are packing a Green Political Punch at the federal level:

• The Speaker formed the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by Rep. Ed Markey. 

• In the first 100 hours, the House passed H.R. 6 that would roll back $14 billion in taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil companies (already enjoying record profits) and shift those resources to clean energy and energy efficiency.

• On March 1, House leadership launched Green The Capital to reduce energy consumption and develop sustainable practices for the U.S. Capitol.

• The House will put forth an Energy Independence legislative package by July 4, a hopeful starting point for a new energy policy.

What Green Solutions can we expect to see from the House?  Here are some of the promising changes enthusiastically endorsed by the Speaker:

Higher Efficiency & Fuel Economy Standards: “Our CAFE standards have not been raised in 20 years. We have gone back from 27 mpg in 1987 to 25 mpg today.” Interestingly, Europe is regulating not mpg but the greenhouse gases from the cars “that will effectively raise their fuel standards to 43.5 mpg by 2012.” As in Europe, we can expect to see efficiency standards not only for cars but also for appliances, heating, air conditioning, computers, and buildings.

Renewable Energy Incentives for wind, solar, and bio-fuels are on the horizon.

A Cap-And-Trade System with mandatory low-enough caps on greenhouse gas emissions: “This is just a matter of writing a bill” expected in the fall. Cap-and-trade systems originated in the U.S. to deal with sulfur dioxide and acid rain. We know how to do this.

Carbon Capture & Sequestration: “If no progress is made on how coal is burned and its CO2 pollution, then global warming just cannot be solved. Sequestration will require technological advancement and investment.”

In summary, Speaker Pelosi says, “I stand at a place that says we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We must reverse the trend of global warming. We must do so in a market-based way and with investments in the technology to shorten the time for us to reach our goals, and we must do it in a fiscally sound way.”

Stay tuned for green legislation from the House this summer and more this fall. And not a minute too soon. Green political leadership is a must. We can’t do this alone. But as Senator Barack Obama said last night, “Don’t underestimate the power of a grassroots movement to stir political leadership and hold elected officials accountable for change.”

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming: how to go green and fabulous environmental events.

Illuminating Money and Politics

Want to know who is giving how much money to which politicians and why? 

Visit MAPLight online to follow the money and find out. You will be surprised what you see!

The new MAPLight is essentially the "Google" search engine of Money And Politics (MAP). It illuminates the often-murky connection between money and politics. You can search by special interest group, subject area, bill number, or legislator. For example, here is the page dedicated to Fabian Nunez.

In the area of the Environment, you can look up campaign contributions and votes related to the subjects of air, coastal, forestry, parks, recycling, toxics, water, and wildlife. The results show who was for each bill and who was against, and how much $$$ flowed along the way. It is truly fascinating to play with and behold.  www.maplight.org

Money & Politics will soon be online and searchable not only for the California legislator, but also for the entire U.S. Congress! Have fun with the site and let me know what info-goodies you uncover.

MAPLight Launch Party - U.S. Congress Site

You are invited to the launch party and a sneak peak of the highly-anticipated MAPLight search engine and database for the U.S. Congress. Be the first in the country to experience a live demo while enjoying cocktails and appetizers in the company of fellow politicos, internet experts, and community leaders.

WHEN:
Sunday, April 29, 2007
4:00 pm - 6:00 pm

WHERE:
Private Residence
Address to be sent upon rsvp
Palo Alto, CA 94306

HOST COMMITTEE:
Lisa Webster, Jon Foster, Catherine Crystal-Foster, Dan Newman, Thomas Layton, and Nadine Weil

RSVP:
510-868-0894
Sean at maplight dot org

Hope to see you there!

On a broader note, each presidential candidate is projected to have to raise and spend around $400 million each before 2008. This makes one wonder if this is really the best way to serve democracy. And what is the opportunity cost of this money? i.e. imagine if the more than $2 billion (that has to be raised painstakingly by corporations and individuals like you and me) could be instead spent investing in education or renewable energy for instance.

I submit that we consider public campaign financing reform in the future and follow the examples of Arizona and Maine who are already doing it successfully. In these states, the lobbyists are disappearing, the state candidates from both parties are running clean, and the politicians are working for the citizens. Now that is a democracy by and for the people, not a government for sale.

Congratulations Jerry!

Jerry McNerney, a man who risked everything to beat corruption and environmental destruction. And won. A man who did the impossible, who unseated 7-term Congressman Richard Pombo from office in California's 11th District.

Jerry McNerney, a man who will bring expertise about renewable wind energy to Congress. A man who answered the call of his son to run because “someone has to step up and fight Pombo. Why not you Dad?”

The McNerney win is a monumental victory for clean technology and endangered species. A triumph over corruption and schemes to demolish the environment.

Jerry McNerney is a man who radiates intelligence, purpose and goodness. A wind energy executive who spoke of ushering in a new era of green technology in California's central valley. I first met Jerry at a screening of An Inconvenient Truth I was hosting for Harvard alumni. I was struck by his inner strength, authenticity, and passion for clean technology. He was clearly a man on a mission to beat Richard Pombo. It was not about him. It was about saving the planet.

His chagrined opponent, the once-thought untouchable Richard Pombo from Tracy, had systematically being trying to dismantle the Endangered Species Act for years - and was on the cusp of succeeding. Close call. As the chairman of the powerful House Resources Committee (used to be and is supposed to be “Natural” Resources Committee), Pombo sought to sell off America's National Parks and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coasts to oil drilling. Pombo was listed as one of the most corrupt politicians in Congress and had ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I skimmed through a 500-page report on Richard Pombo. It was so disturbing and full of so many atrocities, I had to put it down.

On November 7, 2006, Pombo became the only incumbent in CA's 53-member congressional delegation to lose a seat. The voters spoke. The results: 53% Jerry McNerney, 47% Richard Pombo. It was time for a change. Pombo has gone extinct in Congress. A new modern green species has emerged!

Which politicians are truly green?

If you put a politician in a green campaign bus, is he/she an environmentalist? Maybe yes. Maybe no. The numbers don’t lie. Check out my favorite resource. The California Environmental Scorecard by the California League of Conservation Voters over at www.ecovote.org. It shows the green legislation each year and how each Assembly and Senate member voted.

This 2006 Snapshot is quite telling. Look at the numbers over time too. Very interesting.

I was shocked by the 0% percentages across the board for many elected officials. It appears that certain parties are instructed to vote NO on all environmental bills, regardless of the issue. Why is this? Can someone explain this to me? 

Just because a politician walks and talks like a green duck, doesn’t mean he/she is truly green. Beware. Check the voting record. Might be a brown duck. Quack.