Santa Lucian • September 2007 Santa RM Lucian Protecting … filePG&E vs. choice 3 SLO GE Free: corn ... ment Permit for the Tri-W project site, the major source of controversy,

Santa Lucian • September 2007 RM

The official newsletter of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club • San Luis Obispo County, California

I n s i d eI n s i d eI n s i d eI n s i d eI n s i d ePG&E vs. choice 3

SLO GE Free: corn report 4

Sleep, old power plant 6

Energy EuroTour ‘08 7

Classifieds 11

Outings 12

Please recycle

This newsletter printed on100% post-consumer recycled paper with

soy-based inks

September 2007Volume 44 No. 8

Santa LucianSanta Lucia Chapter of the Sierra ClubP. O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 84

SAN LUISOBISPOCA 93401

Protecting andPreserving theCentral Coast

As Goes California

continued on page 4continued on page 5

SantaLucian

7 p.m., Friday, September28, St. Stephens EpiscopalChurch, SLO:

Sierra Club interns spear-head our 2008 EuropeanSmart Energy Tours,chapter campaigns. Get thelowdown. - page 2

General Meeting

An initiative has been filed for nextyear’s state ballot that seeks to pave theway for the construction of morenuclear power plants in the state. Since 1976, California law hasimposed a moratorium on siting anynew reactors until a way has been foundto permanently and safely store high-level radioactive waste. In the realm ofnuclear power politics, this is perhapsthe most obvious, common-sense lawon the books anywhere in the country.Imagine what the citizens of Japanwould give right about now to have hada law just like it, long before thissummer’s seismic portent of verybad things to come for their nation.The nuclear lobby has been unableto meet the simple terms of this lawor find a way around it, so nowthey’re hoping to vote it out ofexistence. Here’s what’s heading for Califor-nia: A massive ballot initiativecampaign promising that nuclearpower is the way and the light andthe path to salvation from global

warming, so let’s just get rid of that sillyold law and its unpleasant reminderthat we still don’t know what to do withall that ultra-toxic waste product, aproblem the feds and the nuclearindustry have not been able to solve infifty years of trying and fifty years ofpromising. Global warming is a problem thatneeds to be solved. But building morenukes is not any part of the solution.Even if you think they are worth the

The truth behind the campaign for nuclear salvationBy Rochelle Becker, Executive Director, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility Chair, Diablo Canyon Task Force

Last July, SLO Green Build, the SanLuis Bay Chapter of Surfrider and theSanta Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Clubasked the County’s Los Osos WastewaterTreatment Project Team to approve andbuild a treatment plant for Los Ososthat would solve the multiple problemssurrounding the Central Coast’s 30-yearwaste water problem from hell. On August 7, the Board of Supervi-sors, to its credit, refrained from ex-tending the expiring Coastal Develop-ment Permit for the Tri-W project site,the major source of controversy, litiga-tion and delays on the project since itwas issued. In comments submitted to projectmanager Paavo Ogren and the TechnicalAdvisory Committee and the membersof the County’s Project Team, the SantaLucia Chapter said that we considerconstruction of wastewater treatmentfacilities to have been an imperative inLos Osos for the last 30 years in order toprotect the Morro Bay Estuary frompollution and the continued degradationof wildlife habitat. We noted that theLos Osos area is threatened with saltwater intrusion due to overdraft of itsaquifer in excess of maximum sustain-able levels, and that a Level of SeverityIII has been declared for Los Osos’ watersupply. Local growers have stated theirwillingness and desire to use recycled

nitrogen-rich recycled wastewater. Theuse of such water on crops reduces theneed for and use of nitrogen fertilizers,whose excess application results in theleaching of nitrates into water bodies.The nitrogen content in nitrogen-richwater is wholly taken up by plant rootsrather than leaching into water bodiesas a pollutant. We urged the County to hold fore-most in its project selection criteria theimperative that treated wastewater is a

Time to Get Los Osos Right

resource to be utilized, not a pollutantto be disposed of. At the conclusion ofscreening potential technologies andsites for the treatment of Los Osos’wastewater, the treatment and disposaloption selected should provide for therecharge of the aquifer and protectionagainst saltwater intrusion, minimalsludge disposal and the recycling andre-use of treated water, thereby reduc-ing water demand and use. The San Luis Bay Chapter of theSurfrider Foundation and SLO GreenBuild are urging the county to focus onsustainable technology and design prin-ciples, and on considerations for theimpact of sea level rise and other poten-tial impacts of global warming.

Ground zero: The Tri-W site

Elections for the Executive Committeeof the Santa Lucia Chapter are comingup. Yes, Sierra Clubber, you can run for aseat on the Executive Committee andhave a say in decision-making in theSierra Club. The ExCom is an adminis-

continued on page 4

2007 ChapterElections

2 Santa Lucian • September 2007

SSSSSanananananttttta a a a a LLLLLuuuuuccccciiiiiananananan

EDITOR/LAYOUTKaren MerriamCleve NashJack McCurdyEDITORIAL BOARD

The Santa Lucian is published 10 times ayear. Articles, environmental informationand letters to the editor are welcome. Thedeadline for each issue is the 7th of theprior month.

send to:Editor, Santa Lucianc/o Santa Lucia Chapter, Sierra ClubP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected]

Santa Lucia Chapter

2007 Executive CommitteeKaren Merriam CHAIR

Cal French MEMBERJohn Ashbaugh MEMBERSteven MarxTREASURER

Cleve Nash MEMBER [email protected]

Cal French COUNCIL OF CLUB LEADERS

Committee ChairsPolitical Richard KranzdorfConservation Ken Smokoska

Membership Cal FrenchActing Program Chair Letty French [email protected] Andy GreensfelderDiablo Canyon Task Force Rochelle BeckerDesal Task Force Jack MorrowOther Leaders

Open SpaceGary Felsman 805-473-3694Calendar SalesBonnie Walters 805-543-7051Chapter HistoryJohn Ashbaugh 805-541-6430

ActivitiesOutingsGary Felsman 805-473-3694

Canoe/KayakJoe Dickerson [email protected]

General InformationSanta Lucia ChapterP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

Chapter DirectorAndrew [email protected]

Office hours Monday-Friday,11 a.m.- 5 p.m., 547 Marsh St.,Suite B, San Luis Obispo

Change of Address? Mail changes to:

Sierra Club National Headquarters85 Second Street, 2nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105-3441

or e-mail:[email protected]

Visit us onthe Web!

w w ww w ww w ww w ww w w. s a n t a l u c i a .. s a n t a l u c i a .. s a n t a l u c i a .. s a n t a l u c i a .. s a n t a l u c i a .s i e r r a c l u b . o r gs i e r r a c l u b . o r gs i e r r a c l u b . o r gs i e r r a c l u b . o r gs i e r r a c l u b . o r g

Outings, events, and more!

The Executive Committee meetsthe third Friday of every monthat 4:00 p.m. at the chapter office,located at 547-B Marsh St., SanLuis Obispo. All members arewelcome to attend.

2500

In Memoriam

Jack Morrow

Thanks to Bob and LaVerne McDonnell for their donation in memory ofMickey Sharpsteen.

Thanks to Ralph Tomlinson Jr., Elizabeth Johnson and Jim Patterson fortheir donations in memory of Lynn Christie.

Thanks to Christopher and Colleen Pflanz for their donation in memory ofBea Morrow.

Thanks to Don and Bethany Griffith for their donation in memory ofStanford Smalley.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Andrew Christie

[email protected]

[email protected]

VICE CHAIR [email protected]

[email protected]

About Those Layoffs...A brave face is being put on the loomingcuts of hundreds of jobs at the DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant by PG&E,the county’s largest employer. It is saidthe company will probably absorb thoseworkers elsewhere, or will probably re-hire them in the future when businessconditions change and it realizes itneeds them after all, etc. “Probably” is nice, but…. “Diablo Canyon had 1,700 employeesin 1998 before a series of layoffs led tothe present 1,400 level; now they pro-pose a second round of layoffs to paredown to the 1,000 range,” says DavidLochbaum, a former nuclear engineerand one of the nation’s top independentexperts on nuclear power. “The moremoney handed to PG&E by the state,the more jobs are lost at Diablo Canyon.It would seem a wiser investment forCalifornians to be putting money intocleaner energy and more jobs.” Lochbaum’s sentiments are backedup by a 2003 report by EnvironmentCalifornia’s Research and Policy Center,“Renewable Energy and Jobs: Employ-ment Impacts of Developing Markets forRenewables in California.” The reportfound that full realization of state re-newable energy programs, such asCalifornia’s goal of 20 percent renew-able energy by 2017, would create anestimated 119,000 person-years of em-ployment. Overseas renewable energymarkets would create an estimated addi-tional 9,700 new jobs for Californians by2017, totaling 78,000 person-years ofemployment. At an average salary of$40,000 per year, total job growth wouldhave payroll benefits of $8 billion. “Renewable energy technologies havethe potential to grow California’seconomy and provide thousands ofhigh-tech, high-paying jobs,” saysBernadette Del Chiaro, clean energyadvocate for the Research and PolicyCenter. “With the right programs, Cali-fornia could develop a ‘Green EnergyValley’, similar to Silicon Valley, whilebringing all the environmental benefitsof clean, locally produced energy.” A report by the French research insti-tute Detente compared the results ofinvestments in wind energy and nuclearenergy and found that the same level ofinvestment generated 2.3 times moreenergy from wind, and five times morejobs. Then there’s solar. The manufactureof solar photovoltaics is expected to be a$40 billion industry by 2025. “Solarpower not only creates pollution-freeand reliable electricity, it creates morejobs per unit of energy than all othertechnologies,” says Del Chiaro. “Byexpanding our solar market, we couldexport solar panels like we export veg-etables, computer programs and Holly-wood movies.” So take heart, soon-to-be-formerDiablo employees. The county backed

the wrong horse, but it’s not too late tochange. The job losses at our localnuclear dinosaur can be matched andsurpassed by those to be had from anexpansion of clean, renewable power. One key is the requirement of a Re-newable Portfolio Standard. The higherthe target for renewables required as apercentage of the country’s energy port-folio, the greater the stimulus to cleanpower development, and the greater theeconomic development and environ-mental benefits. This fall, the House andSenate will vote on the final version ofan Energy Bill that -- thanks in largepart to Sierra Club lobbying efforts --will include a Renewable ElectricityStandard that could finally allow us tojoin the worldwide boom in renewableenergy markets. The other key is a“feed-in tariff” -- i.e. getting paid by thepower company when your meter spinsbackwards. This has been the triggerfor Germany’s explosive solar energyindustry. As Reuters reported last Au-gust, it gives “anyone who generatespower from solar, wind or hydro a guar-anteed payment from the local powercompany. The power firms are obligedto buy solar electricity for 49 cents perkilowatt hour — or nearly four timesmarket rates. This can work out at abetter return than putting money in thebank.” That’s how you go about expandingrenewable energy. California can have afeed-in tariff, too, of course... just assoon as the utility lobbyists let us.There seems to be some delay, there.Can’t imagine why. Which brings us back to Diablo Can-yon. The L.A. Times ran a strong seriesof editorials on nuclear power in July. Ifyou missed them, go to:http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072407O.shtmland http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_mirage_of_nukes.070730.htm

In a single paragraph, the Timesskewered every “environmental” argu-ment being put forward for buildingnew nukes: “The potential for wind power aloneis nearly limitless and, according to aMay report by research firm Standard &Poor’s, it’s cheaper to produce thannuclear power. Further, the amount ofelectricity that could be generated sim-ply by making existing non-nuclearpower plants more efficient is stagger-ing. On average, coal plants operate at30% efficiency worldwide, but newerplants operate at 46%. If the world aver-age could be raised to 42%, it wouldsave the same amount of carbon asbuilding 800 nuclear plants.” And that, as they say, is pretty muchthat. But you might as well mention thejobs advantage over nuclear, too. TheTimes didn’t, so we did. There is no“probably” in a clean energy economy.

How They Spent Their Summer VacationGeneral Meeting: September 28

Friday, Sept. 28, 7:00 p.m., SLOSt. Stephens Episcopal Church, 1334 Nipomo St.at Pismo- Enter parking lot off Pismo.

The students ofthe EmpowerPoly Coalitionengineered our2008 EuropeanSmart EnergyTour during

internships at the Chapter’s officeand worked on Chapter campaigns.Find out what they learned, and whatyou canlearnfromthem!

Santa Lucian • September 2007 RM33

PG&E’s David Rubin at the SLO Smart Energy Solutions Summit

Whose Choice is it Anyway?

“Each communitywill need to decideon its own exactlywhat it is desirousof doing andwhether CCA is theright approach forthem to pursue.PG&E supportsCommunity ChoiceAggregation as anoption; we’re happyto work with com-munities that wantto pursue it….PG&E has longbeen a supporter ofcustomer choice.

for public consumption...

from Chapter reports

Greenwashing:Don’t YouBelieve ItBy Ben Eckold, Empower Poly Coalition

Can HomeDepot Clean UpIts Act?By Teddy Llovet, Bulbs Across America

We supported the deregulation thattook place in the late 1990s, which pro-vided an opportunity for customers tochoose power suppliers other thanPG&E, and we supported CCA for thesame reason. It provides communitieswith an opportunity to self-select theirpower supply. But I’ll go a little bitfurther than that as well. A number ofpeople have asked me why PG&E sup-ports energy efficiency, why PG&Esupports solar, and the notion is that uspromoting these types of ways that our

customers can manage their energy useis somehow in opposition to our busi-ness model. But it really is our businessmodel to work with our customers, tohelp them manage their bills, and alsomanage the impacts of energy use onthe environment. ”

- David Rubin, Director ofService Analysis, PG&E,

Smart Energy Solutions Summit,San Luis Obispo, Oct. 10, 2006

Our utility has an image problem.

Earlier this year, the Home Depot inSan Luis Obispo donated energy-savinglight bulbs to my Bulbs Across Americacommunity service program so I coulddemonstrate various CFLs (compactfluorescent light bulbs) and their ben-efits. I was grateful for their donationand I viewed Home Depot as a “green”partner in conscious climate change. In June, the county’s IntegratedWaste Management Authority (IWMA)implemented the “San Luis Obispo TakeBack” program for dead household bat-teries, fluorescent tubes and compactfluorescent light bulbs. Retailersthroughout SLO County who sellhousehold batteries or fluorescent tubesand compact fluorescents will now takethose items back from the public forfree. . . except our local Home Depot!(The SLO Home Depot now has a newmanager, who says he personally willtake back fluorescents. Let’s see if hejoins the “take back” program. Go towww.iwma.com and click on “fluores-cent tubes and bulbs” for a complete listof county stores participating in “TakeBack” program.) A former Home Depot employee toldme “they do not have a hazardous wastebox for compact fluorescent bulbs.Many fluorescent tubes and compact

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company,while publicly promoting its commit-ment to renewables and clean energy,has been working privately to under-mine a state law that gives communitiesthe option of getting their power fromrenewable energy sources. The Community Choice Act, passedby the California legislature in 2002,introduced the concept of CommunityChoice Aggregation (CCA) to the state.Under CCA, cities and counties can pooltheir resources and shop for energyfrom suppliers other than PG&E or oneof the other two large private utilitiesdesignated to serve their area, contractfor a competitively priced energy pack-age that protects their citizens fromprice hikes and is up to 100 percentderived from renewables, and establishtheir own municipal green utility. Mu-nicipalities have access to better financ-ing than private utilities, and don’t haveto pay out stratospheric executive sala-ries or profits to shareholders. The benefits of CCA to communitiesseeking to build models for energy useand local initiatives to curb greenhousegas are obvious. Paul Fenn, author ofCalifornia’s Community Choice Act,speaking last October at the San LuisObispo Smart Energy Solutions Sum-mit, said CCA “would not just be goodfor the environment; it would probablybe the best thing to happen to the envi-ronment in this community in the lasthundred years.” Tam Hunt of SantaBarbara’s Community EnvironmentalCouncil says CCA is “as close to a silverbullet as we have” for building demand

for alternative en-ergy, establishing amarket, and lower-ing prices. The Sierra ClubSF Bay Chapterapproved a Com-munity ChoiceAggregation cam-paign plan in No-vember 2004. TheSierra Club Califor-nia/Nevada Re-gional Conserva-tion Committeefollowed in June2005 with unani-mous approval. Mul-tiple Chapters and Groups in California,including the Santa Lucia, Redwood,Los Padres and Tehipite Chapters, andMarin and North Alameda Groups, haveactive campaigns promoting CCA imple-mentation plans. The Energy/ClimateChange Committee of Sierra Club ofCalifornia has had CCA as its #1 priorityfor the last three years. For at least that long, PG&E, the

state’s largest, for-profit investor-owned utility, haspublicly stated itssupport for Com-munity Choice Ag-gregation, takingthe position thatwhile losing cus-tomers may looklike a threat to theirbusiness model,they are content tocontinue makingtheir profits fromsupplying the powerlines and infrastruc-ture that must still

be used to transmit electricity to andwithin communities. PG&E is one ofthe founding members of the local Stra-tegic Energy Alliance for Change,chaired by the Santa Lucia Chapter ofthe Sierra Club, which sponsored lastOctober’s energy summit here. Imple-mentation of CCA in San Luis Obispo isthe top priority of SEA Change and theSanta Lucia Chapter.

But now that cities and counties arestarting to begin implementing CCA –San Francisco intends to use it to meetits newly established 51% renewableenergy/efficiency standard — a largegap has opened between PG&E’s wordsand deeds. Specifically, PG&E is devoting signifi-cant resources to the defeat of Commu-nity Choice Aggregation implementa-tion plans. The strategy appears to be afull-court press by PG&E against Com-munity Choice. In Fresno, PG&E’s efforts have re-sulted in the pull-out of that city fromthe regional CCA implementation plan.(The other participants are determinedto go forward.) On June 25, the SanJoaquin Valley Power Authority filed acomplaint against PG&E before thePublic Utilities Commission of the Stateof California (CPUC) for unlawful inter-ference in their CCA plan. San Joaquinrequested that the court “immediatelyissue an Order to Show Cause requiringPG&E to appear before the Commissionat the earliest possible opportunity todemonstrate why it should not be heldto be in violation…as a result of activi-ties before prospective CCA customersundertaken at the expense of PG&E ‘sRatepayers.” The SJVPA asked the Com-mission to “issue an Expedited Orderrequiring PG&E to immediately ceaseand desist from the activities described

continued on page 10

continued on page 10

continued on page 4

Sand-bagging local green power initiatives is strictly business for PG&E

If you’re a casual reader of nationalmedia publications, whether the sourceis websites or magazines, then you areprobably fairly aware of the recent buzzbeing generated about issues likesustainability and global warming.Even for us hardcore enviro-nerds, theconstant onslaught of cookie-cutterarticles and Leonardo DiCaprio lambast-ing can be, well, annoying. What’sworse, in my opinion, is the deceptivemarketing used primarily by oil compa-nies and utilities to appear environmen-tally sensitive. This kind of deceptivemarketing is called greenwashing. Taken directly from the all-knowingWikipedia, ‘greenwash’, a contraction ofgreen and whitewash, is a pejorativeterm that environmentalists and othercritics use to describe the activity ofgiving a positive public image to ques-tionable environmental practices. Theterm “greenwashing” was originallyconfined to describing misleading in-stances of pseudo-environmental adver-tising. But lately, as corporations’ ef-forts to portray themselves asenvironmentally virtuous have diversi-fied and proliferated, so have thecharges of greenwashing. The term is

now used to refer to a wider range ofcorporate activities, including, but notlimited to, certain instances of environ-mental reporting, event sponsorship,the distribution of educational material,and the creation of “front groups.”Whatever strategy is used, the mainobjective of greenwashing is to giveconsumers and policy makers the im-pression that acompany is taking thenecessary steps to solve a problem whilemisdirect attention from its true eco-logical footprint. This is an important line of thought.Are we accepting alternatives to fossilfuels that are viable... or easily pro-moted? Are huge energy subsidies in-

volved (look to the most recent Presi-dential Address and the reference to“alternatives”)? Do these companiesstand to gain regardless of whethertheir investments succeed or not? It willbe fantastic if this all works out to be forthe greater environmental good, butfrankly those of us who are working toidentify viable solutions to our energyand global warming problems don’thave time to waste on inaccurate corpo-rate media designed to mislead andmisinform the public. The problems with greenwashing: -Most obviously, greenwashing ismisleading. It attempts to deceive us,


Are you growing genetically engineered(GMO) corn, also known as Bt corn orRoundup Ready Corn?

If you are growing genetically engineeredcorn, are you labeling your corn as geneti-cally engineered/GMO?

Are you growing certified organic corn?

If you are growing certified organic corn,are you labelling your corn certifiedorganic?

Do you sell your corn at retail?

Are you aware that genetically engineeredcorn is being grown at two locations in SanLuis Obispo County?

Are you concerned that geneticallyengineered corn being grown in the countymight contaminate your field or seeds?

Park Organics

LeFort’s Organic Crops

Mike Broadhurst

Overly Growers

Mt. Olive Farm

Chapparal Gardens

Clark Valley Farming

Blue Sky Gardens

Highland Ranch

Jack Gibson

no

no

no no no

no no yes

no yes

yes - yes - farmers farmers mkt. mkt. & our

yes yes no

no no yes

no

no

no

yes

Growing & Selling

Contamination Concerns farm store

no

no

yes-

yes

yes

yes

Avila farmers mkt.

no

yes

yes-

yes

yes

yes

nono

no

no

cornmaze forpumpkinseason

no

no

no

no

no

Notes

no

no

SLO GE Free 2007 Corn SurveyGenetically engineered Bt corn wasdeveloped by the Monsanto Corporation.It is created by inserting into the DNA ofthe corn a gene from a bacter-iumBacillus thuringiensis which pro-duces atoxin that kills the corn ear-worm. Btcorn is registered with the EPA as apesticide, but approved by the Food andDrug Administration for human con-sumption and not required to be labeled. In April 2004, Vermont became the

first state to require manufacturers ofgenetically modified seeds to label andregister their products. In June 2006, the Santa Cruz CountyBoard of Supervisors voted unanimouslyfor a precautionary moratorium on theplanting of genetically engineered cropsin the county, based on the recommenda-tions of the GE Subcommittee of itsPublic Health Commission. The Com-mission noted health risks, risk of con-

Cal Poly Crops Dept. did not respond tothe survey. Dr. John Peterson, DepartmentHead, said: “It is a horribly biased sureyand I’m not in a postiong to respond to it.”Dr. Jeff Wong said that Cal Poly is growinggenetically engineered Roundup Readysilage corn. The corn will be polilnatedbefore it is harvested. Proximity to CalPoly’s sweet corn and potential forcontamination is unknown.

Conclusion

Buyer beware. When you go to buycorn, ask what kind it is. Geneticallyengineered seed and crops are notallowed under the organic standard.No Certified Organic corn can begenetically engineered. When buyingfrom other than a certified organicgrower, ask whether the corn has beengenetically engineered.

Dr. John DiVencenzo did not respond tothe survey. He has stated publicly that hegrows genetically engineered Bt sweet cornand that he will begin labelling this year.

Jack Gibson did not respond to the survey,but has said he uses organic techniques andgrows a conventional hybrid calledSweetie, which is very popular at theCambria Farmers Market.

The majority of Blue Sky Gardens’ corn isfed to livestock after pumpkin season.

Hayashi & Sons did not respond to thesurvey or a phone call.

no longergrowingcorn

farmers mkts. & CSA

no longergrowingcorn

tamination, lack of long-term humanhealth testing, and the lack of regulationand failure of the federal government tofollow its own limited standards for GEcrops. The report contrasted sharply withthe near simultaneous report of the SanLuis Obispo Health Commission, whichsupported the status quo: No morato-rium, no monitoring, no labeling. The SLO County Board of Supervi-sors directed the county’s farmers to see

if they could find a way that geneticallyengineered and conventional and organiccrops can coexist. From May through July, SLOGE Free conducted a survey of all thegrowers of sweet corn we could find inSan Luis Obispo County. The results arereported in the grid below. SLO GE Freethanks all those who responded to thepoll.

“The idea is for Los Osos to be ashowcase of appropriate technologiesand green sewer design with water rec-lamation, without chemical treatment,”said Surfrider’s Mary Fullwood. “LosOsos in so many ways is a white canvasready to be painted, in an area of sensi-tive habitats — some of the greatestbeauty in the world, on a National Estu-ary now also afforded the highest levelof preserve status as a State Marine

Los Ososcontinued from page 1

Reserve. Because of the environmentalprotections, we are looking at Los Ososas a showcase, a place where there is a‘Sustainability Land Use Design Plan’where cutting-edge new technologiesare implemented and brought intomainstream culture through shifts inbuilding codes, etc., and we then seethis showcase ripple out further intothe county, state, country, where appro-priate.”

trative body; we need people who cantake minutes, organize committees,inspire participation, provide publicity,and organize members. (You don’t haveto do it all; one or two of those is great.)

Conservationists are welcome, but theChapter also needs volunteers who liketo handle the needs common to allorganizations. If you have some timeand would like to help this greatorganization, please volunteer to serveon ExCom. Each winning candidate will beelected to a three-year term. TheExecutive Committee meets oncemonthly at a time and place mutuallyagreed upon. You may nominate yourself orsuggest anyone else to any member ofthe committee. Submit nominations toLetty French, [email protected], 239-7338. Alternatively, members may run bypetition, signed by 25 members in goodstanding of the Chapter. The deadlinefor submission of petitions at thechapter office and close of nominationsis 4 p.m. on Friday, September 21.

Home Depotcontinued from page 3

Electionscontinued from page 1

fluorescent bulbs, either intact or bro-ken, end up in the trash compactor atour local store, which is for non-toxicwaste material only.” (It is illegal tothrow any fluorescent lights, or othermercury-containing items, into thetrash.) “In the garden department,” hesaid, “plants that die or don’t lookhealthy enough to sell are simplythrown away down the trash chute --whole flats, not one or two plants --along with the plastic pots which couldbe recycled.” The SLO store does recyclecardboard and paper, he assured me. I am left wondering exactly whatHome Depot’s corporate policies were.Our local Home Depot does not seem toadhere to earth-friendly practices intheir recycling or hazardous waste dis-posal program. I decided my policy isnot to patronize Home Depot in SLOand to let others know why. I will sup-port my (smaller) local retail store andorder what I need through them.


risk in the name of fighting globalwarming — the waste, spills, quakes,meltdowns, proliferation, terroriststrikes, etc. — they are not worth themoney and time, diverting both of thoseprecious commodities from the energysolutions we should be spending themon. Building nuclear power plants tosave us from global warming is likebuilding a pier to save a drowning man.While the pier contractor was arguinghis case, you’d be thinking that theremust be a better way, a faster, cheaperway, to solve this urgent problem. Andyou’d be right. Hopefully, you’d quicklycome to wonder why you’re evenlistening to that guy. Scientists say we have about ten yearsto pull back from the brink of globalwarming’s worst impacts. That’s tenyears if we’re lucky; ten years, startingnow. The average time to get a nuclear

power plant designed, permitted, builtand operational is…ten years. That’swhat you call a deal-breaker. But even if it weren’t, here are sevenmore, all of which can be foundreported at length, with copiousfootnotes, in the GRACE EnergyInitiative report “False Promises:Debunking Nuclear Industry Propa-ganda:”

· Global warming emissionsresulting from electricalgeneration could be cut by 47percent right now by imple-menting improvements in theefficiency of power generation.

· A dollar invested in efficiencydisplaces almost seven timesas much carbon as a dollarinvested in nuclear power.

Decentralized power plusenergy efficiency cuts far moregreenhouse gas emissions,much faster and cheaper, thannuclear power.

· Nuclear power is not a “zeroemissions” energy source. Themining, milling, processingand transport of uranium isfossil-fuel intensive. Thephenomenon of “peak oil” isabout to meet “peak uranium:”More nuke plants would meanmore uranium mined; declin-ing quality and scarcity meansan intensification of effort andan even higher level ofgreenhouse gas emissions,equivalent to that of naturalgas-fired power plants. Theentire output of two coal

plants is required to power theuranium enrichment facility inPaducah, Kentucky.

· Hey, renewables are great,except when the sun doesn’tshine and the wind doesn’tblow, right? This is probablythe single favorite line of thenuke promoters, after “nuclearpower is a zero emissionsenergy source,” and just aswrong. The InternationalEnergy Agency has studied thisobjection and answered it withthe simple solution of mixingenergy from different sources:On-site solar photovoltaics,plus wind farms, geothermal,etc. — different types of powerintegrated from differentlocations overcome anyconcerns about intermittency.

· Hey, what about France? Thepro-nukers always pointproudly to our plucky Gallicfriends, their oodles ofreactors, their 70%+ depen-dency on nuclear power. Muchless mentioned: The summerof 2006, when a record heat-wave wracked that country,forcing power reductions andreactor shut-downs acrossFrance. You can’t operate yournuclear reactor when thecooling water is too warm.Global warming has madenuclear utilities, our allegedsavior from global warming,the victim of irony: They willbecome increasingly unreliableas the water gets warmer.

· About 2,000 new reactorswould have to be builtworldwide to make a dent incarbon emissions. Do you havea trillion dollars you’re notusing? Do you know of ahundred-plus safe, permanentwaste repository sites youhaven’t told the Department ofEnergy about?

· Nuclear energy received 60percent of all federal energyR&D funding from 1948 to1998. Renewables got 10percent. Energy efficiency got7 percent. Yes, there’s some-thing wrong with this picture.No, we shouldn’t help perpetu-ate this formula.

California is the nuke lobby’s GoldenDomino, and if it falls prey to the hypethat nuclear power must be part of ourefforts to curb global warming, then wehave turned out the beacon of a trulysustainable, renewable light that thenation and the world is watching. We can defeat this ill-conceivedinitiative. We need to reach out to all ofour friends, our families, our co-workers, our religious community;everyone has a stake in this, and if weshare this information we will succeed. We have started a listserve dedicatedto defeating the initiative to allow thebuilding of new nuclear power plants inCalifornia. This will be an informationallistserve for the purpose of educatingpeople about the issue and working tobring people and groups from all overCalifornia to work together to stop thisinitiative. Please go tohttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonewnukesca and sign on.

Rochelle Becker will receive the SierraClub’s Alliance Award on September 29at the Club’s annual awards banquet inSan Francisco.

A Stupid,Stupid Plan

“Seven billion dollars!” State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (right).

On March 11, 2007, State AssemblymanChuck DeVore (R-Irvine) headlined hisblog entry for the day: “You stupid, stu-pid man!” Assemblyman DeVore went on toreveal that he was quoting one RogerDavenport, who had written ane-mail to the Assemblyman comment-ing on DeVore’s authorship of a bill thatwould lift the moratorium on buildingnuclear power plants in California. Thestate legislature put the ban into effectin 1976, to remain in effect until suchtime as a method for the safe, perma-nent storage of nuclear waste has beenfound. That time has not come, but DeVorewants to lift the ban anyway, reasoningthat if we start building new nuclearplants now, they’ll be ready to go on linein about ten years, and “an approvedstorage method ought to ready by then.”

with a straight face the Nuclear EnergyInstitute’s estimate of an average pro-duction cost for nuclear energy of 1.72cents per kilowatt hour, which omitsthe billions of dollars socked to rate-payers for radioactive waste disposal,plant construction, maintenance, de-commissioning and dismantling. Hethen calculated nuclear’s percentage ofAmerica’s annual 3,881 billion kWh of

not theoretically — they are not re-quired to pay. The cost of a full coremeltdown at Three Mile Island couldhave been $560 billion, according to thefederal government’s estimate. $560billion minus $7 billion equals $553billion of subsidized liability. That’sbefore adding the costs of research,waste storage, plant decommissioning,bond interest, etc. The other subsidy that didn’t registeron DeVore: $61 billion, in 1995 dollars,that was spent over five decades (plusanother decade’s worth since Zepezauerand Naiman wrote) on nuclear powerresearch. All that taxpayer moneypoured into nukes created much oftoday’s non-level energy playing field.Wind and solar power get one-tenth ofthe federal dollars and tax breaks lav-ished on coal, oil, gas and nukes.DeVore does not acknowledge, and doesnot seem to be aware of, the reason forsubsidies and the effect they have onmarket pricing. He appears to believethat some natural law has pegged theprices of wind, solar and nuclear powerat their present levels. DeVore looks at the economicsthrough the wrong end of the telescopeand gets results that say “more nukes.”After correcting his math, the real num-bers say “it’s the subsidies, stupid.” (SeeTaking Issue, “Solar Power CapturesImagination, Not Money,” page 8). DeVore says he’s doing this becausenukes are the answer to global warm-ing. (For the real answer, see “As GoesCalifornia,” above). He concludes hisfateful blog entry: “I think nuclear is theway to go – but what do I know, I’m justa ‘stupid, stupid man’.” He is also the author of thegrievously misnamed California ZeroCarbon Dioxide Emission ElectricalGeneration Act, which will be comingback to life on your ballot next Juneunder a similar name. Let the voter beware.

Orange County Register

electricity production, and concludedthat nuclear power produces “about$53.5 billion worth of electricity. A $7.1billion subsidy, if true, is equal to about13 percent of the value of nuclearpower.” His biggest mistake: Going alongwith Zepezauer and Naiman in estimat-ing the nuclear industry’s insuranceliability cap as worth only a $3 billionportion of an alleged $7.1 billion in totalsubsidies. But the insurance subsidy isnot the cost of the theoretical $3 billionin additional insurance coverage thatnuclear utilities are not required to buy;it’s the full cost of damages beyond their$7 billion liability cap that – in reality,

New Nukescontinued from page 1

5

His bill died a quick death, but will tryagain next year in the form of a ballotinitiative. In an effort to disprove Davenport’sassessment of his I.Q., DeVore devotedthe rest of his lengthy blog entry to anattempt to disprove the assertion thatnuclear power is heavily subsidized. Citing a 1996 article entitled “Takethe Rich Off Welfare” by Mark Zepe-zauer and Arthur Naiman, he quoted atotal nuclear industry subsidy of $7.1billon a year. Considering this a stagger-ing sum, he wrote “I do not for a mo-ment believe this accusation, but, forthe sake of argument, let’s accept it.”Even more acceptingly, DeVore cited

In a February blog entry, Assembly-man DeVore wrote that “Currentlybuilt nuclear power plants featureone-tenth the moving parts of 30-year-old designs and are 1,000 timesless likely to fail (on top of an alreadyvery good safety record in the West).”But there are no nuclear plants being“currently built” in the U.S. All 106existing reactors are those 30-year-olddesigns. Presumably, DeVore is refer-ring to “next generation” plants,which are in the planning stage, avery long way from “built.” No doubt,after the headline-making earthquakein Japan last July, Mr. DeVore is gladhe wrote “in the West” last February

regarding the safety record of nuclearplants. But, in fact, he’s wrong there,too. The safety record of U.S. plants isa history of lax and defective federaloversight and a long list of seriousviolations, accidents and near melt-downs, with major disasters narrowlyaverted by fortunate timing, dumbluck or the grace of God. But the real point of interest here isthat DeVore is making an excellentargument against the relicensing ofexisting nuclear power plants – all, byhis admission, 30-year-old designs,with ten times the moving parts of the“next generation” and 1,000 timesmore likely to fail.

Another Good Argument


The Dream Draws Near Morro Bay power plant starts to edge out of the picture

Melody DeMeritt and John Meyers at the New Futures Group September 2006 community workshop in Morro Bay.

The odds keep mounting against a newpower plant being built in Morro Bay, orthe existing one continuing to operate. In July, the Second Circuit federalappellate court rejected an appeal by thepower utilities of the court’s landmarkJanuary decision that, in effect, prohib-its the use of sea water for coolingpower plants. That means the U.S. Supreme Courtis the last resort for opponents of thecourt’s mandate that alternative coolingtechnologies, which do not use ocean,estuary, river or lake water and therebyharm the environment, are now re-quired for both new and existing plants.Legal experts believe the chances areslim that the high court would acceptan appeal. A few days after the Second Circuitdenied the appeal, a special citizenscommittee created by the Morro BayCity Council last year to study alterna-tive uses of the power plant site recom-mended formation of a liaison commit-tee “to look at the future of the site withthe owners.” In a key action, the Coun-cil, whose 3-2 majority has consistentlysupported a new plant, voted to imple-ment the recommendation of the MorroBay Power Plant Property Ad-Hoc Com-mittee, aka the North EmbarcaderoWaterfront Futures Group. It was a milestone in the process ofexploring a new future for the plant,coming two years after numerous resi-dents proposed examining other optionsfor the plant site when Duke Energysold the plant and exited California,sending a clear signal that the opportu-

nities such merchant generators saw inthe deregulated California energy mar-ket were drying up. Last year, when the City Councilformed the New Futures Group, thepossibility of the removal of the oldplant and the103-acre plant site beingredeveloped generated many ideas foroptional uses. They included some typeof tourist-serving development, like amarine museum, an arts and culturemecca, a convention center, and possi-bly a hotel or other housing. In its report to the Council,the New Futures Group rec-ommended seeking additionalideas from the community, aninvestigation into costs andbenefits of alternative uses ofthe site, consideration of theformation of a redevelopmentagency, drawing up optionaldevelopment plans and explor-ing grants and funding. Whether the city, a redevel-opment agency, or privatedeveloper would pursue rede-velopment has not been ad-dressed, but the report sug-gested consideration ofretaining an outside firm toinvestigate these possibilities. Passage of the $5.4 billionparkland, open space andclean water bond issue on lastNovember’s ballot is a possiblesource of funding for redevel-opment of old power plantsites along the coast. It con-tains funds to help restore

urban waterfronts marred by industrialsites like power plants. Meanwhile, the plant owner, LSPower, now a subsidiary of Dynegy, Inc.,refuses to say what its plans are for theMorro Bay plant, the same stance takenby Duke Energy. Therefore, its applica-tion for a federal permit to operate anew plant remains stalled before theCentral Coast Regional Water QualityControl Board. That application, if pur-sued, would have to be considered bythe board under the new requirementsmandated by the Second Circuit, whichmeans no further use of water from theMorro Bay National Estuary for cooling. The Jan. 25 Second Circuit decisioncalls into question whether the current(extended) permit is legal, now that use

of sea water for power plants has beenbanned. A coalition of environmental organi-zations, including the Sierra Club, isurging the State Water Resources Con-trol Board to adopt a new state policyprohibiting or phasing out use of seawater for cooling by the 21 coastalplants in light of the Second Circuitdecision. Although the decision may beappealed to the Supreme Court, thestate water board could take the initia-tive and enact a state policy that goesbeyond federal policy on power plantcooling, just as the California Air Re-sources Board has adopted air qualitystandards more stringent than the fed-eral Clean Air Act requires.

By Jack McCurdy, co-President, Coastal Alliance on Plant Expansion

no


The Sierra Club Santa Lucia Chapter’sEuropean Smart Energy Study Tour willbring together policymakers and busi-ness people on a trip through NorthernEurope. Travelers will visit model citiesthat champion energy efficiency andconservation, smart growth, greenbuilding, innovative transportation, andutilization of renewables. The aim is tosee “real time” application of cutting-edge technology and policy. The programs, policies, and creativedesigns that are found in manyEuropean cities provide excellentexamples to establish a distributedenergy portfolio in San Luis ObispoCounty. Sierra Club’s Energy Tourtakes a holistic approach to energyplanning with the aim of inspiringcomprehensive policy-making andimplementation. The trip will emphasize identify-ing new planning ideas and con-cepts in the early stages of our localenergy policy formation and thedevelopment of an implementation planfor a regionally distributed energyeconomy. The cities chosen are allcomparable -- in climate, population,geography, or all three -- to the CentralCoast. Northern Europe is at the forefront ofbuilding comprehensive energy policies

that encourage both an increase in en-ergy performance standards and thepromotion of ‘smart energy’ sources.The trip will include visits to England,Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark,and Sweden.

Letterssend to: [email protected], or P.O. Box 15755, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406. Letters may be edited for space.

Spring 2008:European Smart Energy Study Tour

In its enthusiasm for all things “green,”Santa Lucian needs to be more dis-criminating among shades of green lestits praise become mere backgroundnoise. Cases in point are two recent reportson Cal Poly’s “energy saving” “greenenergy” photovoltaic installation atopEngineering West, a building largelyoccupied by the College of Architecture.The first report was absolutely breath-less, the second somewhat calmer, andboth were misleading. First off, Cal Poly didn’t “do” thissolar project. The PV panels, whichcover close to an acre of rooftop, wereput there and are owned by a privatefor-profit company which will sell thepower generated to the university forseveral decades at a premium “greenenergy” price. Cal Poly, by doing noth-ing other than paying for this expensivepower, thus gets green energy bragging

rights. But does this “green power” installa-tion actually save any energy? One as-sumes it must, but assumptions withoutfacts can lead one astray. In the trulygreen world, PV installations are pre-ceded by measures to conserve as muchelectricity as possible before any panelsare ordered and installed. There aremany reasons for this, the most obviousbeing it’s not green to waste energy,whatever the source. Cal Poly skippedthis important step. It did nothing toimprove electric energy performance ofEngineering West, an energy dinosaur,prior to going solar, so as a result thisvast PV array provides only about aquarter of the building’s electricity! Inthe normal scheme of things, this omis-sion would be economically and envi-ronmentally crazy, but under the pub-lic-private partnership that producedthe Engineering West project, the par-

The two-week trip will take place inthe spring of 2008. We will returnarmed with the knowledge of how tomake what they do there work here! For more information, call (805) 543-8711.

ties both get what they want — greenpublicity for the university, a steadylong-term profit center for the installer— and green common sense becomesirrelevant to both. The breathlessness with whichSanta Lucian reports every minoralleged green eruption on campuslacks historical perspective. The stateof California began commissioningdeeply green buildings during the JerryBrown administration in the 1970s —a long, long time ago, in other words.Over the years, the state has pioneeredand regularized various green designstrategies, while Cal Poly has not. Infact, I cannot think of a single buildingon campus that’s impressively green indesign and function. Cal Poly has along way to go just to catch up withthe mainstream environmental build-ing movement, let alone do anythinginnovative. In light of that, SantaLucian’s indiscriminate cheerleadingfor every claimed green measure oncampus seems a bit strained, and verymisleading to readers, given the vastgap between what is on campus, andwhat could and should be on campus.

Santa Lucian would do more for theplanet by keeping pressure on Cal Polyto do what it should do (big things!)instead of endlessly praising it for doingso little.

Richard SchmidtSan Luis Obispo

The two articles by Cal Poly IndustrialTechnology student Steven Fishbackand Business student Katie Wolfe thatappeared under the heading “Cal Poly’sPower” in our July/August issue statedthat “only one building has beenequipped with solar panels, and only afew General Education classes havebeen devoted to sustainable teaching”in the three years since Cal Poly offi-cially “acknowledged the importance ofteaching and practicing sustainableresource use;” that the solar installa-tion on the Engineering West buildinggenerated “quite a small percentage ofCal Poly’s total energy needs, but it is astep in the right direction;” and that theuniversity is behind other campuses inthe CSU system in the use of renewableenergy. Indiscriminate cheerleading wouldseem to be in the eye of the beholder. Energy efficiency and conservationare the top priorities of the SierraClub’s Energy Resources policy, andthat element was lacking in Cal Poly’ssolarization of Engineering West. Butas the campus’s first foray into renew-able energy and step in the right direc-tion, it earned a Pollution ReductionAward from the county Air PollutionControl District – not a noticeablybreathless or indiscriminate regulatoryagency. Green campus initiativesspearheaded by the Empower Poly Coa-lition, such as the Power House, and bythe Renewable Energy Institute underthe leadership of Margot McDonald arethe most exciting things happening oncampus. A local representative of Si-erra Club California now sits on“Access to Excellence,” a CSU planninggroup formulating a ten-year plan forevery campus in the system. Nextsummer’s UC/CSU Sustainability Con-ference holds much promise(www.sustainability.calpoly.edu) Cal Poly having taken the first step,all this should greatly assist it in takingthe additional steps necessary to helpthe campus get to where we all want itto be.

Empower Poly Coalition Vice Chair and SierraClub summer intern Nancy Cole (left) goes overdetails of the Smart Energy Tour with ChapterChair Karen Merriam and Treasurer Steven Marx.

Thanks to OurGenerous Donors!

For one more month, agenerous donor will

match every contributionto the Santa Lucia

Chapter, up to $25,000.

Until October 1, everydollar you donate to the

Chapter is worth double!

The support ofevery one of ourmembers is essen-tial to the continu-ing success of ourconservation initia-tives. Remember, ev-ery dollar that youcontribute will bematched, through September 31! - For an unrestricted donation, mailyour check payable to Santa LuciaChapter, Sierra Club. - For a tax-deductible donation, makeyour check payable to Sierra Club Foun-dation - SLO Land Preservation Fund. If you are not yet a member, clip outthe membership form on page 2, mail itin, and receive your membership gift.

New membership formsgo to the listed Boulder,Colorado, address. Send alldonations to:

Sierra ClubP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

7


Summary: The Tribune reprinted on itsfront page an abridged version of a storyon solar power from the New York Times.The Tribune’s abridgement wound uptelling a story that wasn’t just shorterthan the story the Times reporters wrote,but a different story. The Tribune leavesthe impression that solar just isn’t up tothe challenge; the Times examines thereasons why that impression has comeabout.

“Solar Power Captures Imagination, Not Money,” by Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald,New York Times, July 16, 2007.

“Solar power is hot topic but far from mainstream,”The Tribune, from the New York Times, July 16, 2007.

And given the current state of researchin private and government laboratories,that is not expected to happen anytime soon.

Did the Tribune just print the first fiveparagraphs and trim the rest? Were theyjust editing for space? Not quite. the Tribune’s editors cut oneparticular sentence from those first fiveparagraphs. In the original story, thereporters write of solar power that“moving the technology from niche tomainstream... is unlikely withoutsignificant technological breakthroughs.”The next sentence in the Times, cut fromthe Trib, is this:

Taking Issueproblematic environmental coverage & commentary in our local press

Upshot: The Times reporters begantheir story by noting that “the trade asso-ciation for the nuclear power industry”conducted a poll and found an over-whelming public preference for solarpower as society’s primary future energysource. They went on to show that solar isstill only a small part of the energy mixbecause of politics and pork, not technol-ogy. By omitting the point of the story --that a renewable energy future is a matterof political will and reorienting misplacedfunding priorities -- the Tribune’s mediamanagers changed the story into the spinof a competing energy industry, designedto obscure this fundamental fact. It be-came a story that could have been writtenby a trade association instead of the storythat was printed in the New York Times.

The Tribune’s version then ends with agovernment estimate of the minisculepercentage of total U.S. energy supply thatsolar is expected to provide in the future,and ends with the ominous statistics onnew coal-burning power plants. The omitted sentence is a springboardand introduction to the rest of the Timesstory, which is about the reasons whysolar power has not yet broken through tothe mainstream:

Research on solar power andmethods for storing intermittentenergy has long received lessspending...than energy optionswith more political support.

for decades, conventional nuclearpower and nuclear fusion receiveddominant shares of governmentenergy-research money.

“Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in thetens of millions,” says Rhone Resch, president of theSolar Energy Industries Association. “We count ours inthe tens of thousands.”

Government spending on energyresearch has long been shaped bypolitical constituencies. Nuclear power,for example, has enjoyed consistentsupport from the Senate Energycommittee no matter which party is inpower -- in large part becuase SenatorsJeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici,the Democratic chairman and theranking Republican, are both from NewMexico, home to Los Alamos NationalLaboratory and a branch of the SandiaNational Laboratories.

Member countries of theInternational Energy Agencyhave long spent more moneyon technologies like nuclearpower than on convertingsunlight to electricity.

After encour-aging 346researchgroups lastyear to seekgrants forsurmountinghurdles toharnessingsolar power,the EnergyDepartmentthis yearended upawarding $22.7million overthree years to27 projects --hardly the stuffof an energyrevolution,severalscientists said.

In the current fiscal year, the EnergyDepartment plans to spend $159 millionon solar research and development. Itwill spend nearly double, $303 million,on nuclear energy research, and nearlytriple, $427 million, on coal, as well as$167 million on other fossil fuel re-search and development.

“There is plently of intellectual fire-power in the U.S.,” said Prashant V.Kamat, an expert in the chemistry ofsolar cells at the University of NotreDame, who has some Energy Depart-ment financing. “But there is limitedencouragement to take up the chal-lenge.”


“Early victory for Measure J opponents,”by Bob Cuddy, The Tribune, July 28,2007

Summary: Seemingly inexplicably,Ernie Dalidio has revived a year-oldcomplaint against his opponents in the2006 ballot initiative fight over the devel-opment of his ranch. Even more mysteri-ously, his complaint is against opponentsin an election that he won. The mysterycleared up only if one went on to read theless prominently featured local lead storythat day, which is not mentioned in thefirst story. No mystery as to which side ofthe issue our daily paper of record is on. The items of interest here: Timing andplacement.

4-inch headline, front page.1-inch headline, Local section.

The re-airing of charges over politicaldonations that were aired throughout theMeasure J campaign, eight months afterthe election, is considered front-pagenews. On the same day, the courtroomvictory of Measure J’s opponents, nowallowed to introduce as evidence in theircase Dalidio’s ballot campaign and docu-ments describing how the San LuisObispo City Council came to approve hisprevious development plan – a legal vic-tory, not just an attempt to influencepublic opinion with a press release and afiled complaint — is only local news. “Flak” was originally an acronym de-rived from the German term for an anti-aircraft barrage in which cannons fireexploding shells into the air, hoping en-emy planes will be flying near one when itexplodes. In current military parlance,flak is what jets release when pursued by amissile in order to confuse the missile’sguidance system and throw it off course.The case against Measure J centers on itsattempt to transform the authority ofelected decision makers into ministerial(automatic) decisions, the damage it doesto the County’s General Plan, and itsattempt to trump state law. Dalidio’s rep-resentatives failed in their attempt tonarrow the evidence in the case, and then,on the same day, trained their flak can-nons on the court of public opinion.

Three days later, theTribune noted theperplexity of theCity Attorney and

Downtown Association General Manager Deborah Cash:“City Attorney Jonathan Lowell said he was puzzled byDalidio’s complaint because the association had stoppedtaking sides after Lowell advised them not to last year [afterthe previous Dalidio ballot measure election]. Cash also wasperplexed. “I’m in the dark about this,’ she said. ‘To me, itdoesn’t make sense.’ ”

Upshot: Both stories should have beenfront-page news. They were, in fact, twohalves of the same story, and shouldhave run that way, not as separate, un-connected stories, with the more impor-tant one clearly indicated as less impor-tant. The Tribune’s managers, who couldnot credibly omit altogether the news ofthe courtroom win of Measure J’s oppo-nents. instead submerged it and made itas difficult as possible for the reader tomake the connection between a court-room victory and an opponent’s p.r.retaliation for it.

“Dalidio asks state to identify opponents,” by Bob Cuddy, The Tribune,July 28, 2007

Dalidio also alleges that theDowntown Association,through its advisory committeeto the City Council, illegallyused public funds to influencevoters in the Measure Jelection...

The operator acknowledged afterward that theearthquake was stronger than the plant was built towithstand. In the United States, by contrast, regula-tors require plants to be designed so that theirreactors shut down safely if struck by the strongestquake considered possible in their region.

“Nuclear plants are rarely damaged by earthquakes,” Associated Press, The Tribune, July18, 2007.

“Nuclear power plant mishap is a warning,” from the Orlando Sentinel, The Tribune,August 4, 2007.

Summary: There’s no cause for alarm: The earthquake-caused fire and radioactivereleases at Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant should be seen as reflecting inher-ent problems with Japanese nuclear power plants, not with nuclear power or inevitablehuman fallibility.

This is a non-sequiter; the Japa-nese reactors were also designedto shut down, and did so. That’snot the problem. As the NewYork Times reported, the TokyoElectric Company admitted that“the force of the shaking causedby the earthquake had exceededthe design limits of the reactors,

suggesting that the plant’s builders had underestimated the strength of possible earthquakesin the region.” The builders of the Diablo Canyon plant did not know of the existence of theHosgri fault. When it was discovered, they retrofitted the plant, pronounced it capable of with-standing an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude, and proclaimed that the strongest magnitude earth-quake that could strike the plant is a 7.2.

Those guidelines were not put inplace until 1995. Japan’s leadingseismologist, Katsuhiko Shibashi,warns that the 6.8 magnitudeshock exceeded the design capa-bilities of the Kashiwazaki plant

by a factor of three. Japan’s earthquake experts assess the probability ofan 8.0 quake within the next 30 years to be 87 percent.

Upshot: The Kashiwazaki plant essentially caught a 90-pound fish on a 30-poundtest line. We must now hope that U.S. engineers and geologists somehow know more-- or are better guessers -- than their Japanese colleagues.

Generally, plants adhering to[Japanese] governmentguidelines...are considered safein quakes up to 7.75 magnitude.

9


We Love What We’ve Done with the PlaceLast July, as the SierraClub acquired a won-derful new office space,we also “acquired”some art work. Ournew office used to bepart of the Johnson ArtGallery and the wallswere crying for somecolor and interest.Chapter Chair KarenMerriam and longtimefriend Evy Justesentalked about the spaceand came up with asolution: Let’s hangsome paintings on thewalls. Evy has been part ofa group of about nine painters who havebeen meeting bi-monthly for over fiveyears with Mary Renzi as their mentor.They call themselves the San Luis Art-ists’ Collective - -when they need a label- - and are Marcy Adams, Judy Carroll,Julie Frankel, Mary Kay Ghiglia, Sue

McKey, Noel Middle-camp, Jeanette Wolff,and Liz Yost. There will be a rota-tion of artists andwork to keep the walls

interesting and varied. All the work isfor sale, and the artists will donate 25%of the sale to the Santa Lucia Chapter. It is a wonderfully symbiotic rela-tionship!

“Dolly Llama,”by Evy Justesen

in this complaint and from other simi-lar activities that violate the Com-mission’s general standard of conductrelating to PG&E’s marketing and re-lated activities to prospective CCA cus-tomers; and issue an order establishingspecific standards of conduct applicableto PG&E’s marketing and related activi-ties to prospective CCA customers.” In its August 16 issue, Platt’s ElectricPower Daily reported that, in San Fran-cisco, PG&E has admitted to circulatingto community groups “a position state-ment pointing out what it views as flawsin the city’s [CCA] plan.” Platt’s notedthat San Francisco supervisor RossMirkarimi has said that “PG&E lobbieslocal officials, from the mayor to theboard of supervisors, in an effort todiscredit the CCA plan” and that this isthe utility’s “normal course of busi-ness.” “I think there is also this expectationthat those neighborhood communitygroups [that have befitted from PG&Egrants and donations] show a loyalty toPG&E that also potentially translatesinto not aligning with any effort thatcould suggest public power, or couldsuggest community choice aggrega-tion,” Mirkarimi said. It would be a mistake to think thatPG&E is trying to bump off CommunityChoice Aggregation because it is run bypeople who are clueless about the im-

Last January, while hosting a solar panel inauguration event at aSan Francisco LGBT Center, PG&E executives were met by pro-testers who “felt that PG&E’s attempt to celebrate solar and theconcept of ‘Green’ smelled disingenuous, given that the companyactually owns 0% solar, only 2% wind, and has long lobbied tocut the amount of solar energy it has to buy,” as reported byAliza Wasserman of the San Francisco Bay Area IndependentMedia Center.

PG&Econtinued from page 3

eration to interfere withthat mandate. And it makesits profits by generatingenormous amounts of en-ergy at single locations andtransmitting that energyover long distances. AsRebecca Solnit put it in“Reasons Not to Glow” inthe July/August 2007 issueof Orion magazine:“Nuclear power plants, likecoal-burning power plants[and all other power plants],are about retaining the biginfrastructure of centralizedpower production and, of-ten, the habits of obsceneconsumption that rely onbig power.” PG&E’s current policy –strenuously trying to stampout CCA while publicly stat-ing that it wishes to help

communities with CCAimplementation — is thekind of strategy that failswhen exposed to sunlight.Better if PG&E tried to dowith CCA what the movie

California CoastalCleanup DaySaturday, September 15, 20079 a.m.-noon

For more information abouthow you can help, includingbeach clean up sites, visitwww.ecoslo.org, or call us at(805) 544-1777.

Local sponsorship provided by: The Tribune, Southern CaliforniaGas Company, SLO Journal, City of Pismo Beach, New Times,Chevron, HopeDance, Sierra Club - Santa Lucia Chapter, First Bankof San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay Estuary Program, City of Morro Bay,Information Press, SignCraft, Coast National Bank, Central CoastSurfboards, Womens’ Press, and Moondogies.

Under CCA, decisionsabout rates, generatingresources and publicbenefit programs will bemade locally and beaccountable to localcustomers. - Calif. Local Government Commission

Greenwashingcontinued from page 3

pacts of global warming and the need toget away from non-renewable power andswitch to as much clean, alternativeenergy generation as possible, as fast aspossible. They know that. But PG&E is acorporate organism with a defensemechanism and hard-wired survivalinstinct, much like a mountain lionchasing a competitor out of its territory.(The primary difference: A mountainlion won’t put on a public face of coop-eration with its competitors.) PG&Emust make a profit for its investors. Itcannot, by law, allow any other consid-

making us think that a company withan awful environmental track recordactually has a great one. Not all envi-ronmental advertising is dishonest, ofcourse. But any advertising legitimatelylabeled as “greenwashing” is dishonest,and that’s a problem. -Greenwashing could result in con-sumer and regulator complacency. Ifone corporation in a particular industrygets away with greenwashing, othercorporations will follow suit, therebycreating an industry-wide illusion ofenvironmental sustainability, ratherthan sustainability itself. This creationof the illusion of environmentalsustainability could have dire socialconsequences as consumers will con-tinue to use products and support com-panies that further environmental deg-radation and reduce the quality of livingconditions for future generations. - Greenwashing may also engendercynicism. If consumers come to expectself-congratulatory ads from even themost environmentally backward corpo-rations, this could render consumersskeptical of even sincere portrayals oflegitimate corporate environmentalsuccesses. Thus well-meaning compa-nies, companies committed to respon-sible behavior with regard to the envi-ronment, have every reason to becritical of companies that greenwash. Two of the largest oil producers inthe world, Shell and BP, are quicklyemerging as leaders in the world ofrenewable energy. Shell is one of thetop five wind power generators in theUS, while BP plans to produce 550megawatts of wind energy in 2007, one-sixth of the total projected US windenergy output, according to the BostonGlobe. I’m wondering if the big oil com-panies have suddenly found eco-reli-gion, or if the recent developments aresimply an attempt to “greenwash” awaythe climate-spoiling sins of their prod-ucts. On one hand, I feel that any effortto develop renewables should be em-braced, regardless of who is footing thebill, or what their motives may be. Onthe other hand, the planned 550 mega-watts worth of BP installations seemlike a drop in the barrel for a companynetting $20 billion in profits every year(in Alaska alone the company plans toinvest $5 billion in the next five yearson oil exploration and production). Andwhile their planned installations mayaccount for one-sixth of all wind energyproduction in the U.S., they willamount to less than 1% of worldwidewind energy production in 2007. At least they are changing, right? Ifthe oil companies have any vision intheir long-term business plans, theywill have to diversify, and have newproducts ready when the oil begins todry up. ‘Big Oil’ will be forced go greenif it’s the only alternative to ‘No Oil.’Some minor comfort is gained from theknowledge that one day petroleumwon’t be the cheapest energy. Supplyand demand will dictate what productthe big energy corporations sell, hope-fully at an honest price. I just hope thatby then it isn’t already too late…

studios did after they gave up trying tokill off television and VCRs: Find a wayto make money off it. They could trans-form their business and marketingmodel, get into the distributed/on-siteenergy generation manufacturing &financing business in a big(ger) way,and start helping communities chooselocal green power. This time, for real.

the Environmental Centerof San Luis Obispo


ClassifiedsJune issue ad deadline is Sept. 14.To acquire a rate sheet or submityour ad and payment, contact:Sierra Club - Santa Lucia ChapterP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected]

Local Government Meetings

City of SLO--1st & 3rd Tues., 7:00p.m.; 781-7103

Arroyo Grande--2nd and 4th Tues.,7:00 p.m.; 473-5404

Atascadero--2nd & 4th Tues.;466-8099

Cambria CSD -- 4th Thurs.;927-6223

Grover Beach--1st & 3rd Mon., 6:30p.m.; 473-4567

Grover Beach PlanningCommission-- 2nd Tues.

Morro Bay--2nd & 4th Mon.

Paso Robles--1st & 3rd Tues., 7:00p.m.; 237-3888

Pismo Beach--1st Tues., 5:30 p.m.;773-4657

Los Osos CSD board-- 1st Tues. &2nd Mon., varies

California Coastal Commission--3rd Tues., varies

SLO County Board of Supervisors--every Tues.; 781-5450

SLO Council of Governments;781-4219

SLOCOG Citizens Advisory Committee--1st Wed. every other month, 6:00 p.m.

SLOCOG Board--1st Wed. every othermonth, 8:30 a.m.

7

Get informed andstay that way! Ask tobe put on the SantaLucia Chapter’se-alert list.

Send request to:[email protected]

“AWAKENING THE DREAMER” SymposiumSeptember 29th, 1-5pm, Refreshments and discussion, San Luis Obispo Library.$10 Donation requested

If you are ready to move your concern for the world’s people and wildlife toinspired action and to be linked to a growing movement of “blessed unrest” thatwill change the dream of our industrial culture, we invite you to join us. Formore information, please go to www.pachamama.org or call 237-1135.

11


Photo by Joaquin Palting

Outings and Activities Calendar

Hiking Classifications:

Distance: 1 = 0-2 mi., 2 = 3-5 mi.,3 = 6-9 mi., 4 =10-12 mi.,5 = 12 mi. or more.

Elevation Gain: A = 500',B = 1000', C = 1500', D = 2000',E = 2500', F = 3000' or more.

All of our hikes andactivities are open to all Clubmembers and the generalpublic. If you have anysuggestions for hikes oroutdoor activities, questionsabout the Chapter’s outingpolicies or would like to be anoutings leader, call OutingsLeader Gary Felsman (473-3694). For information on aspecific outing, please contactthe outing leader. OutingsLeaders please get your outingsor events in by the 1st for thenext month’s outings.

This is a partial listing ofOutings offered by our

chapter.Please check the web page

www.santalucia.sierraclub.orgfor the most up-to-date

listing of activities.

September 15-195-day, 5-island cruises visiting allfive islands included in Channel Is-lands National Park: San Miguel,Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Anacapa, &tiny Santa Barbara Island. $925

Depart from Santa Barbara. Pricesinclude assigned bunk, All meals,snacks, beverages, & services of aranger/naturalist who willtravel withus to help identify, seals & sea lions,birds & wildlife, plants & flowers,whales & other creatures of the sea.

These cruises are fundraisers to ben-efit Sierra Club political programs inCalifornia. To make a reservation,send $100 check payable to SierraClub to leader Joan Jones Holtz,11826 The Wye St., El Monte, 91732.(626-443-0706; [email protected]).

Website:www.truthaquatics.com/hiking.htm

We’ll also see remnantsof the richculture of the Chumash people wholived on these islands for thousandsof years. Each island is unique & offers itsown special charm. Activities includehiking, kayaking, snorkeling, beach-combing, or just relaxing at sea. Inspring the islands are ablaze withcolorful wildflowers. In summer, theenticing, pristine waters of the Ma-rine Sanctuary, churning with color-ful fish and sea lions, will delightsnorkelers and swimmers.

Looking for a real wilderness vacation?Come rent Canyon Creek Lodge.In the mountains near Smithers, British Columbia. Designedfor groups and families. Easily accessible by air, road or rail,

yet located in a true wilderness setting. Canoe, kayak, raft, bike, hike, fish, ski, or viewthe abundant wildlife. The Lodge accommodates up to 10 with 5 bedrooms and 2.5baths. It’s like your own private wilderness area, but with all the comforts of home. Alsogreat for retreats, seminars, courses or club outings. We can connect you to local outfit-ters, guides or instructors. Visit www.canyoncreekbritishcolumbia.com, [email protected] or call 250-847-4349 (Roger McColm). Mentionthis ad and 5% of your rental goes to the Santa Lucia Chapter.

Whales, Pinnipeds & Wildflowers:Channel Islands National Park

SEPT. 2, 0930, Sun., WOODLANDS.A bicycle tour of the “instant city” withmany stops. Meet at junction of WillowRd. & Albert Way. Must wear helmet.Call 929-3647 or <[email protected]>a few days before to confirm and for de-tails.

Wed, September, 5, 12, 18, 26, 5:30p.m. Informal Hikes around SLO.Typically 2 hours or so. Details call 473-3694 or e-mail Gary Felsman for loca-tion.

Sat., Sept. 8th, 8 a.m. Tanbark Trail,Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park. This isan all-day trek to Julia Pfeiffer BurnsState Park Partington Cove Area. Thehike itself is 7 - 8 miles with 1800-footelevation gain to old Tin House over-looking the Big Sur Coast. Lots of red-woods. A running creek. Return trip willeither be back down the way we came ordown the fire road, then a short walkback along Highway 1. Hopefully it willbe clear. Meet at the Washburn Day Usearea, about 2 miles north of Cambria onHighway 1. It is about 1 1/2 hours to thetrailhead. Call Gary at 473-3694.

Sat., Sept. 15th, 0930 POINT SALCLEAN-UP. Part of CA. Coastal Clean-up. Details just before event as access intransition. Call 929-3647 or<[email protected]> a few days beforeto confirm and for details.

Sept 15-17 - Big Sur BackcountryTrail Work Trip. Help clear the logs offof the North Coast Ridge Trail, above

Cook Springs. Amazing views of the SanAntonio Watershed, Salinas Valley, andLake San Antonio. A short hike to GasCan/Tin Can Camp (informal name) al-lows for fantastic views of the Ocean,valleys below, and Junipero Serra. Meetat the entrance to Cone Peak Road at8 a.m. on Saturday. This will be a 3-daytrip, covering about 3 miles of moderateVentana Wilderness Trails. Water andpicnic table at Cook Springs, no waterat trailhead. This is a moderately diffi-cult trip, with opportunity to participatein or observe traditional logging tech-niques for clearing trails, as well asbrushing and treadwork. No experiencenecessary! Participants should be able tobackpack four miles and come preparedfor at least an overnight stay. Minoramounts of poison oak, which should beavoidable with care. Tools providedupon request! Participants should bringgloves, eye protection, long sleeve shirt,long pants, boots, bug net, water, andfirst aid kit at a minimum. The maindraw of all our trips is the Saturdaynight potluck appetizers, so feel free tobring an appetizer of your choice toshare with your friends! Leader DavidKnapp. For more information, direc-tions, and any other questions, [email protected] (SponsoredBy Ventana Wilderness Alliance)

Sun., September 16, CANOE/KAYAKMORRO BAYHere is a chance to see a bit of the backbay. We will either paddle Chorro Creekor Shark Inlet. Bring your boat andequipment, PFDs, binoculars and a pic-nic lunch that you can eat in your boat.Lowtide 6:39 a.m. 1.98'. Put in: 10a.m.Hightide 1:55p.m. 4.14'. Launch atMorro Bay State Park Marina. JoeDickerson 693-9534.

Sat., Sept. 22, 8:00 a.m., Vicente FlatHike: Join the leader on this moderate10.2 mile hike from Highway 1 to beau-tiful Vicente Flat campground. There isabout 1700 ft of elevation gain. The hikewill provide great views of the Big Surcoast and you will get to have lunchamong the redwoods. This will be anall-day event. Bring water, lunch, anddress for the weather. There is a possi-bility of ticks and poison oak. We willmeet at the Washburn day use area inCambria and carpool. It is approxi-mately a 50-minute drive fromCambria. There will be a refueling stopin Cambria after the hike for those whoare interested. For info, contact Chuckat 441-7597.

Sun., Sept. 23, 0930, BIKE TOUR ofNIPOMO, Meet at Library with bike &helmet. An easy ride on bikeways toNipomo Native Garden, Park, Creek-sidePreserve, Dana Adobe (if time & inter-est). Call 929-3647 or<[email protected]> a few days beforeto confirm and for details.

Annual Creek Day - VolunteersNeeded! Saturday, September 29,

2007 9am-12pm, Mission Plaza. SanLuis Obispo and Additional CountywideSites. Remove litter from local creeksand make a big difference in just 3hours. Join hundreds of other volun-teers for some fresh air and exercise,and help take out the trash on CreekDay. Dress in long sleeves and closed-toed shoes. Gloves and bags provided.Visit www.creekday.org or call 544-9096for more information. Sponsored by theLand Conservancy of San Luis ObispoCounty and the City of San Luis Obispo.

Sun., Sept. 30, 0930, NIPOMOCREEKSIDE PRESERVE. Meetbehind Adobe Plaza in old townNipomo. My easiest hike, see new trailto Nipomo Creek. We’ll probably go toDana Adobe as well. Call 929-3647 or<[email protected]> a few days beforeto confirm and for details.

SEPT 2007 ANNUAL MCAS PELAGICTRIP : Sun., Sept. 30, from 7:00 AMto 3:00 PM. Out of Morro Bay, headingout toward the Santa Lucia Banks, butgoing wherever the birds are …allwithin San Luis Obispo County waters.Expect a good variety of sea mammalsBoat: The 55 ft “Fiesta”. We used thisboat last year and although it is smallerthan we have had in the past, it is alsosubstantially faster. (Seewww.morrobaysportfishing.com forphoto.) There will be NO “hot galley”this year since it wasn’t used last year.Leaders: Tom Edell and Brad Schram ,both expert and experienced pelagic tripleaders. Cost: $75 per person. Sign upearly. Last year we filled up by August.For more information and an Applica-tion Form: contact Maggie Smith at

[email protected] or callher at 805-710-4356.

Sat.-Mon., Oct 6-7 Service Trip in theEl Paso Wilderness (South ofRidgecrest, CA). Help install tortoiseramps in two guzzlers. Desert tortoisecan become trapped in these wateringspots; ramps will enable them to drinkand to get out safely. BLM will supplyramps and tools. Two and a half milehike on Saturday to work site, carryingtools. Visit to interesting archeologicalsite along the way. Sunday, shorter hiketo work site, visit to historic area after-wards. BLM Wilderness CoordinatorMarty Dickes will direct the installationefforts. Car camp Friday and Saturdaynights. Happy hour and potluck dinnerSaturday night. Ldr: Kate Allen 661-944-4056, [email protected]

Documents

Santa Lucian • September 2007 Santa RM Lucian Protecting … filePG&E vs. choice 3 SLO GE Free: corn ... ment Permit for the Tri-W project site, the major source of controversy,