by Brian Leubitz

San Francisco’s City College is massive. Despite SF’s population being just over 800,000, there were over 56,000 students enrolled in the system in the spring semester, with over 37,000 as undergraduates. But, despite that success in providing services to the community, times aren’t always easy for the district. They’ve been in an accreditation fight for the last few years, with the hammer coming down in early July:

Beset by mismanagement and unable to convince overseers that it had repaired extensive problems, City College of San Francisco will lose its accreditation a year from now and its elected Board of Trustees will be stripped of decision-making powers, the college learned Wednesday.

The decision by an accrediting commission allows the college of 85,000 students – among the largest in the country – to stay open until July 31, 2014, unless an appeal is successful or if the college can make enough progress to win an extension. (SF Chronicle)

The Board of Trustees has already been stripped of their powers and replaced by Special Trustee Bob Agrella. (You can read an interesting Q&A with him at EdSource http://www.edsource.org/today/… Where it all goes is still up in the air, with appeals still pending to the accreditation board, the ACCJC.

But now that very accreditation committee is under fire, and under a federal “Show Cause” order for violations of regulations and procedures.

In a delicious turnabout, the federal Department of Education has threatened to yank the accreditation of the ACCJC, the agency that is trying to shut down City College.

The move came in response to complaints by the California Federation of Teachers that the ACCJC is out of control and has failed to follow federal guidelines for site visits, conflicts of interests and other areas.(Tim’s SF)

You can read the full letter here http://www.saveccsf.org/wp-con… but it’s pretty technical. In the end, it doesn’t say that the committee is really “out of control” as Tim Redmond calls it above, but it does cast some of the same worrying tones that the ACCJC’s reports about City College used.

Look, City College clearly has some rather big issues. The finances are still in question, and one or more of the facilities may be closed by Agrella and his team as they work with interim Chancellor Dr. Thelma Scott-Skillman. But the system provides a quality education for thousands of San Franciscans every year, and the accreditation committee got this one wrong.

The DoE’s ruling on the ACCJC does not directly impact City College’s fight to keep their accreditation, but as Tim points out, it just may change a few minds there.

Das Williams and other coastal legislators call for federal protection of sensitive ecosystems

by Brian Leubitz

The Assembly is back in session, but sometimes the important part of the job isn’t actually legislation. In a letter to the EPA and Dept. of Interior, several legislators are calling for more regulation on offshore fracking:

Assemblyman Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara) wrote the letter signed by seven other state legislators and sent to the the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The lawmakers call for federal officials to consider new regulations for fracking under the seabed.

“Hydraulic fracturing poses great potential dangers to our sea life and all California residents,” Williams said. “This controversial well-stimulation technique needs greater scrutiny, particularly when it potentially jeopardizes our coastal way of life.” (LAT)

The letter was also signed by Sens. Pavley, Evans, and Jackson, and Asms. Stone, Levine, Bloom, Nazarian and Wieckowski.

Now, this isn’t the same thing as doing the important work of actually getting some solid legislation on fracking passed. That needs to happen ASAP, and while Sen. Pavley and other have had a bit of a rocky time of that, it is still yet possible to happen before the next election.

Ad parodied TransCanada CEO

by Brian Leubitz

With President Obama’s time running out for a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action group wanted to put some pressure on by advertising on the Tonight Show during the Presidential appearance. However, just before the show (and the ad) were to air, the DC NBC affiliate let the group know that they were not going to air the ad:

NBC has rejected an ad opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, despite running ads in favor of its construction. The climate group NextGen Climate Action says it was notified at the last minute Tuesday night that a Washington, D.C. NBC station rejected its ad, submitted for President Obama’s appearance on the Tonight Show. …

“After a careful review, it was determined that this ad violates our guidelines. We have communicated that to the advertiser,” a WRC spokesperson said.

According to NBC’s advertising guidelines, anything that appears to be “an attack of a personal nature, a direct attack on an individual business or a comment on a private dispute” can be considered unacceptable content.  Meanwhile, NBC has aired its share of pro-Keystone XL ads. Just this Sunday, a TransCanada-sponsored ad ran during Meet The Press that claimed tar sands oil is “cleaner” and would have “little impact” on climate change. (ThinkProgress)

Of course, TransCanada is claiming that the statements were all lies, but the facts remain to back up the claims. Any American jobs from KXL will be short-lived temporary gains, but the big winners will be the oil companies who will be able to feed the growing Chinese appetite for fossil fuels. Given that the shale oil set to be pumped down from Canada is dirtier, the additional hit to the climate would be staggering.

In the end, neither the science nor the economics of the KXL project are in the best interests of the American people, and so the proponents of the project are working to silence critics at every turn. The decision is now in the President’s lap, and we need to pressure him. NextGen Climate Action Tom Steyer, who incidentally seems to have some of his own political ambition and certainly has his own interests in stopping KXL, have been been doing just that. Time is running out to kill this thing, so perhaps the NBC station did them a favor with the free publicity.

Making more than is necessary from a “bridge fuel”?

by Brian Leubitz

You may recall from this post a few months back that the Obama Administration is currently considering oil-company backed proposals to allow unlimited exports of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). So far the US Department of Energy has approved two proposed projects to export LNG, and more than a dozen are pending approval.

Yet questions continue to be raised about the impacts that allowing for unlimited LNG exports would have on our economy and environment. And all this is putting aside the very real dangers of fracking to get at the natural gas: earthquakes, tainted water, etc.

First of all, consider that the impacts of climate change are already arrived. In 2011-12, 25 climate-related extreme weather events caused a minimum of $1 billion in damages each. Luckily, U.S. carbon pollution is at its lowest point since 1994 but the U.S. EIA predicts that U.S. carbon pollution will began to rise by the end of the decade. Part of this drop has come from the modern fuel economy standards reducing emissions. Another factor has been the boom in LNG, allowing electricity generation to move away from coal and other fossil fuels.

The LNG boom has a large role to play in reducing carbon emissions because it burns much cleaner than other fossil fuels. In the short term it can be used to replace coal in electricity production. Natural-gas vehicles are increasingly being used in both public and private fleets as a cleaner, and less expensive, alternative to traditional vehicles. LNG is a veritable bridge to a clean energy future and can replace coal while we develop, transition to, and implement zero-carbon electricity systems.

But LNG can only be a bridge to the future, not the future itself. A recent report by the Center for American Progress(PDF) found that the use of natural gas must peak no later than 2030 if the U.S. is to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

Beyond the near term, however, there needs to be a swift transition from natural gas to zero-carbon energy, particularly in the generation of electricity. … Heavy investment in natural-gas generation capacity could crowd out investments in long-term solutions such as wind, solar, wave, and other renewable electricity sources. A rapid shift from natural gas to zero-carbon energy is therefore critical. Our analysis finds that the use of natural gas must peak no later than 17 years from now, in 2030-which is sooner than many policymakers currently realize is necessary-if the United States is to meet its climate goals and avoid the worst impacts of global warming.(Center for American Progress (PDF))

The transition from LNG to zero carbon energy must be rapid. While LNG combustion emits less carbon than coal, it still produces carbon emissions. Extended reliance on natural gas would make it difficult, if not impossible, to meet climate stabilization targets. Failure to do so risks increased frequency and severity of extreme weather, further hurting middle- and lower-income Americans. If the damages of the previous 25 extreme weather events were any indicator, the cost of disaster relief would outweigh short-term economic benefits.

Natural gas must remain only a bridge, and any expansion in LNG production to meet increased demands must be followed by, and not replace, increased investment in zero-carbon energy sources like wind, solar, and wave energy. Expansion also needs to be done such that it is sustainable from an environmental standpoint; we cannot overproduce and overstretch our natural gas infrastructure. The U.S. currently produces as much natural gas as it consumes. Any expansion of LNG projects should follow this and only produce as much natural gas as is necessary to meet the increased demand that will come from moving away from coal and other fossil fuels towards a zero-carbon energy future.

UPDATE: It turns out that as I was writing this, I missed the Obama administration approving a new LNG terminal in Louisiana.  If we are to avoid a glut of terminals here, we have to make our stand at the state level.