crossposted from Left in SF

It never fails. Bills that seek to make small, but tangible, changes in people’s lives are dismissed as ridiculous by the people they don’t affect. Take Pedro Nava’s Safe Passing bill, AB60, which would mandate that cars give bicyclists 3 feet of space as they pass. Sounds minor, but it could potentialy save dozens of lives every year in California, and make biking in the state more appealing (and remember, everyone who bikes instead of drives means less pollution, less traffic, and a healthier person).

No sooner had I fired off this email to my Assemblymember, Mark Leno, in support of this bill

Dear Assemblymember Leno,

I am writing to encourage your support for AB60, the Pedro Nava Safe passing law. As I am sure you know, the city of San Francisco’s efforts to make bicycling safer have been held up by the intervention of some of our narrow-minded citizens. The State, however, is still allowed to act.

Nava’s bill would help to make cycling safer. I depend on my bicycle as my main mode of transportation and it’s a rare day nobody cuts a pass overly close, occasionally even driving me into the curb.

Every year, more than 100 cyclists are killed in California. It’s time to do something about it.

when I saw this post from the LA Times’s blog Political Muscle:

Another year, another zillion bills. The Times’ Nancy Vogel has sifted through the mounds of legislation already filed by California’s 120 lawmakers. Here are a few offbeat highlights, with our own proposed names attached:

The Lance Armstrong ‘Back Off Buddy’ Protection Act: Assemblyman Pedro Nava wants to require motorists to stay at least three feet to the left of bicyclists when passing them. Under AB 60, violators could be fined up to $250. Perhaps violators will also be required to participate in the Tour de France by riding a Big Wheel.

I can’t read this without hearing Beavis and Butthead saying “heh-heh, heh-heh, he said big wheel”.

I’m pretty clear that this bill is not going to be on the top of many people’s legislative agendas, but it’s a pretty small change that could save plenty of lives.

Click through for what prompted this.

Here’s the email I got today that prompted me to write Leno in the first place:

Hi team mates,

Some of you may have heard that my father was hit and killed while riding his bike lawfully last summer on Highway 35 near Skylonda, which is why I’ve been off the bike more than usual this fall and summer.

A civil case and a criminal case against the elderly driver are pending, but even if we win both (likely, I think) it will really have only a small effect.  If one thing could come of this, I’d like to at least think that I was able to make it less likely to happen to another cyclist, including me and you.

Fortunately, I just learned today that State Assemblymember Pedro Nava, who has just assumed chairmanship of the Assembly Transportation Committee, has re-introduced AB 60, a state bill that would require motorists to give cyclists a minimum 3-foot berth when passing.

Here’s a Sacramento Bee article on AB 60:

Here’s the full text of the bill:

I encourage everyone to write letters of support for this bill.  I think a letter to Nava, and to your own state assemblyperson would be good.

The writer of this letter, and the hundreds of thousands of Californians who ride a bike, deserve better than a snide comment by our state’s version of the Kewl Kids–the political insiders who think they can define what’s important to Californians. The triathlete whose death prompted Nava to introduce the bill, Kendra Chiota Payne, deserves better.

It’s why I’ll never be a kewl political reporter for the LA Times. I care more about the content of the law than whether it’s “offbeat”.

Photo by Richard Masoner.

The Chronicle missed it, cause it wasn’t a guy lost in the woods (although, in a major advance for the media, they cranked up their tizzy for a person of color, not just for a white woman), but the LA Times yesterday covered a Union of Concerned Scientists report on the dangers posed by construction equipment in California.

The effects of air pollution from construction equipment in California are “staggering,” according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The environmental group concluded that at least 1,100 premature deaths and half a million work and school absences in 2005 were caused by people breathing emissions from older tractors, bulldozers and other diesel equipment – at an estimated public health cost of $9.1 billion.

“This is the first time the health and economic impacts of construction-related air pollution in California have ever been analyzed,” said Don Anair, author of the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report urged state regulators to quickly require owners to retrofit or replace older equipment.

“Construction equipment being used to build our hospitals shouldn’t fill them up…. This is a bill being footed by everyone in California, and particulate pollution is a silent killer,” Anair said, citing asthma attacks, cancer and heart disease.

That’s 1100 deaths in California every year.

crossposted from Left in SF

The problem seems to be that until 1996, there were no standards for emissions by construction equipment, and when they went into effect that year, the standards only covered new equipment. So there’re 250,000 old, dirty machines at work in the state, some of which create as much pollution in an hour as a semi truck would in 1100 miles of driving. So before lunch, these machines have cranked out more pollution than a truck driving all the way across the US.

The machines crank out nitrogen oxides, which are the main component of smog, which is bad enough. Even worse, though, is that they emit a huge amount of particulate matter (PM), better known as soot. The PM, which consists of tiny particles,  gets stuck in your lungs, and in the words of one reviewer of the study, is “like tiny razorblades”. It caused 30,000 asthma attacks in 2005, and caused over 300,000 school absences. In many parts of the state, kids are more likely to carry asthma inhalers than pencils to school.

What about San Francisco? Well, as you might be able to tell from the image, we are in a highest-risk area. Of course, the distribution of the PM and the smog isn’t even, so most likely the places where construction is going on most heavily get hit. So the Mission, South of Market, and other construction hot spots are probably the highest risk.

The major question at hand is what to do about this. Are we doomed to suck tiny razor blades into our lungs until there is no pre-1996 construction equipment left? Politically, it’s a pretty tough battle, but we’d need to push the construction industry (who has quite a bit of clout) to retrofit their equiment, use alternative fuels (like biodiesel), replace the engine on the vehicle, or even the whole thing, and at very least, reduce idling.

It’s not clear to me how we solve this, but it seems horrific that we’re killing over 1100 people a year for construction in California alone. At the very least we ought to be able to push the state to use cleaner equipment. I do think that the scale of construction equipment fuel use should make it possible for someone to start a biodiesel business that sells to construction companies. This came out of left field for me, so I haven’t come up with a solution that seems workable. It’s pretty clear that a thousand people and $9 billion a year constitutes a problem we need to solve fast.

The Air Quality Districts (or at least the Bay Area Air Quality Management District) have funds set up to help construction companies clean up their acts. The funds are pretty insufficient, though. The BAAQMD fund will only fund the cleanup of 1000 machines a year, which is only 4% of the (estimated) 25,000 machines operating in the bay Area.

Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the global warming emissions bill into law today:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping global warming initiative that imposes the nation’s first cap on greenhouse gas emissions, saying the effort kicks off “a bold new era of environmental protection.”

Standing on picturesque Treasure Island with San Francisco’s skyline in the background, Schwarzenegger called the fight against global warming one of the most important issues of modern times. (SacBee 9/27/06)

I was actually at this morning’s signing ceremony, it was full of pomp and circumstance.  They had hundreds of flags, George Pataki, and Tony Blair via live hook-up.  It was all some great coverage for Arnold.

However, Arnold hasn’t always been so eco-friendly.  Let’s look at some of the issues where Arnold has been against environmental causes:

• Prop 64 (2004): It may seem a little obscure, in that it wasn’t really an environmental proposition.  However, Prop 64 blocked the ability of citizens to sue corporations under the Unfair Business Competition law.  It formerly was used to bring environmental suits.  No more.  Arnold supported Prop 64 because, like you know…lawyers are bad.
• AB 2042 (2004): AB 2042 would have limited emissions at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.  Apparently, he’s much more comfortable with emissions caps in 2006 than in 2004.  Why?  No real reason, other than his election prospects.
• Prop 87: Arnold is publicly against the current proposition to tax oil extraction in the state.  You see, he’s just against taxes.  All taxes. Any taxes.  Trouble is that this prop would provide real resources to alternative energy research and municipal alternative energy vehicles.  You see he was fine with a similar proposition for stem cell research.  The difference?  In Prop 87, we tax oil companies, big-time contributors to Arnold. With stem cell research we used bonds, which taxes future generations.  And future generations not only don’t contribute, they don’t even vote.  Fuck ’em.

Don’t buy into the current “green” Arnold.  He’d still sell out the environment for a few bucks here or there.

I was going to mention the deal that was struck last week to restore the San Joaquin River, but, other things arose.  However, I would like to point out the arrangement, and not my head vigorously in support of the pact.

This week there was good news from farther afield in the South Bay’s “back yard,” the vast San Francisco Bay watershed that extends from the Sierra to the Golden Gate. On Wednesday, environmental groups, Central Valley growers and the federal government announced an agreement to settle an 18-year-old lawsuit and restore the San Joaquin River, dewatered more than a half-century ago by the construction of Friant Dam near Fresno. (SJ Merc 9/14/06)

Think about this.  There are going to be salmon there! Probably.  The river should eventually flow all the way back into the Bay Delta.  This is a river right now that well…underwhelms.  A viable San Joaquin River benefits everybody along its path. 

Bill Lockyer is leading a charge to seek damages from major car companies for the pollution that automobiles emit.  It’s the first such suit. :

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued the six biggest U.S. and Japanese automakers Wednesday, claiming their cars’ greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming that harms the state.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland, claims human-induced global warming has reduced California’s snow- pack and the fresh water it provides; raised sea levels along the California coast; increased smog over cities; and boosted the threat of wildfires. This collective public nuisance has cost the state millions for assessments and preparations, it says.

“Defendants, by their annual emissions in the United States of approximately 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, are substantial contributors — among the world’s largest contributors — to global warming, and to the adverse impact on California,” the suit says.

Named as defendants are General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor North America Inc., Ford Motor Co., Honda North America Inc., Chrysler Motors Corp. and Nissan North America Inc. (OakTrib 9/21/06)

Of course, if you asked me who was the problem, I’m not sure that I would point solely to the car companies.  The real problem is that the prices of both cars and gas do little to internalize the externalities of the ecological damage that they wreak upon the environment.

I think the suit is a valid one.  The car companies are enablers for our oil addiction. The car companies claim it’s a political stunt by Lockyer.  But let’s be honest here.  Claude Parrish?  Who? yeah, that’s Lockyer’s opponent for Treasurer.  To say that Lockyer is a VERY large favorite is a bit of an understatement.  I don’t really think Lockyer really needs this kind of stunt.

Rather, I think this is an attempt at a novel legal tactic. Like the gun manufacturers, car makers must own up to their responsibility for our oil-addicted economy.

(It’s not always easy to think policy when you are concerned about politics, but AB32 is well (fairly) good policy. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I suppose I should be upset that California has voted to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the latest in a series of wins for the Democratic-controlled legislature in the state.  I’m supposed to be upset because, as a rabid partisan animal, anything that gives the Governor a victory, symbolic or not, helps his re-election chances and hurts those of his opponent, Phil Angelides.  Because it’s all about winning with folks like me, and I’m simply too stubborn to look past politics for even one second to look at the issue on its own terms.

Except that I breathe.  And as a breather, my being able to breathe, and continue to live on this planet with other people, who like to breathe, and who won’t be as threatened by the potentially disastrous effects of climate change, is of paramount importance.  

The bill will use a “cap-and-trade” market-based solution to force polluters in the state to either reduce emissions (by 25% over the next 14 years), or pay significant amounts in noncompliance penalties, or trade with other companies who fall under the targets for the right to produce more emissions.  There are also safeguards to exempt the standards for up to a year in the event of a state catastrophe.  That sounds curiously like last years Prop.76, which would have allowed the governor basically to line-item out spending on education and health care and any other entitlement in the event of a “budget emergency.”

But compromise is often how things get done in our political system.  Although this so-called “grand compromise” between a Democratic legislative majority and a Republican governor really isn’t much of one.  The ENTIRE Republican caucus in the State Senate voted against it, and the ENTIRE Republican caucus in the Assembly is likely to follow suit.  This is exactly the same scenario as the minimum wage (without a COLA adjustment) bill, which all but one Republican (Abel Maldonado) refused to support.  These deals represent a compromise between a dominant Democratic legislature and a neutered puppy of a Governor who needs to go along with this stuff to save his job.

I applaud Dom Perata and Fabian Nunez for recognizing that this Governor was at his lowest ebb of power, and deciding that now was the time to get something done for the state.  It would be a tragedy to hold fire because of an election year while the climate crisis continues and the federal government remains unconcerned with doing anything about it.  Progressive legislative agendas at the state level have a way of bubbling up to the surface and eventually forcing themselves onto the federal stage.  And California is the world’s 12th-largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, so the victory is not symbolic but tangible.

The politics of this are of less concern to me than ensuring our children’s future by fighting global warming today.  Phil Angelides has a tough sell, but would be right in saying that he supports the same basic goals and would go further in making California the world leader in the alternative clean energy industry.  Where he would be even righter is to note that not one Republican in both State Houses supported this legislation.  “Do you want a Democrat or Democrat-lite?” is the question.  Leading Democrats are making progress on a wide range of legislation.  Republicans are obstructing all of it, to a man.  If Arnold Schwarzenegger is re-elected and he is unconstrained by the voters, will he shift again to the side of pretty much every member of his party?

But for now, I say, good for California, for doing something to protect the environment and help save the planet.

P.S. It’s been a week now since the Honest Corporate Tax Reporting Act reached the governor’s desk.  Will he sign, veto, or just misplace?

And while both candidates have come out against Shiela Kuehl’s universal health care bill, which candidate has consistently fought against any measure that expands health insurance for Californians?

AND, Yes on Prop 89’s diary is a must-read.  Remember that Phil Angelides SUPPORTS Prop 89, an act of political courage.

There are plenty of points of contrast, despite the neutered puppy’s lurches leftward attempting to curry favor with the dominant ideology in the state.

California appears set to become the first state to actively regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Frank at the C.P.R. has more: (By the way, Frank has been doing some excellent work in the last few weeks covering the end of the session.  He’s running himself ragged to get to cover as much as possible in the Capitol.)

The California State Senate has passed greenhouse gas emission reduction bill AB 32 (Nunez/Pavley) by a vote of 23 to 14 with three abstentions. All 23 votes in favor were cast by Democratic Senators and all 14 votes against the measure were cast by Republicans.

Earlier today it was announced by Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, and coauthor Fran Pavley that Governor Schwarzenegger was in support of the message. The Governor has hailed this as a bill he was looking forward to sign.(California Progress Report 8/30/06)

The deal includes an optional cap-and-trade provision, which appears likely to happen along with an escape clause that would allow the governor to unilateraly stop the implimentation of the law based on economic factors:

Schwarzenegger had insisted on creating an escape clause that would allow for a delay in the deadlines in case of a natural or economic disaster. He got that. (SF Chron 8/31/06)

I’m still not sure about whether or not there has been a clear definition of what an economic disaster is; I’ll look into whether there are some restrictions on the governor’s power in that area.

In the end, the legislature worked hard to get as many people as possible on board with the plan. They even got PG&E to give its blessing to the deal.  Ultimately, if people choose to stick their head in the ground and disbelieve good science, there’s nothing we can do. 

Republican State Senator Tom McClintock, a candidate for Lieutenant Governor, acknowledged that the climate was in fact warming, but ascribed that to the waxing and waning of the climate cycle and said that the next time we have an ice age, it will go down. He predicted financial ruin for the state and that it would increase the state deficit.(California Progress Report 8/30/06)

If this is a token measure, then so be it.  Somebody has to lead the nation towards a better future.  California has always been that leader and should continue to be so.  We are the worlds’ 5th largest economy, and the effect of our pollution is no trivial matter.  This is a major step towards promoting the reduction of global warming emissions internationally and Speaker Nunez, Assemblywoman Pavley, and Senator Perata should be commended for their work on this bill.

This Week in Northern California, which airs weekly on KQED TV produces an audio podcast, available here.  I have video of this week’s episode on the flip.  It’s less than stellar quality, but not terrible.  THe pictures are less important than the audio, so I’d highly recommend listening to the podcast. However, the stream is on the flip.

Environmental Defense and the NRDC have released a website and new ad on AB 32 and SB 1368.  The ad directly attacks an earlier ad by the “Competitive Enterprise Institute” that alleges that CO2 is merely a byproduct of life and or our Wonderful technology.  “Imagine if they succeed in labelling CO2 a pollutant.” 

Both ads are in the extended.

First the NRDC/ED ad:

Now the CEI’s patently absurd ad:

With much apologies to global warming “agnostic” Dan Walters, the debate on global warming is over.  The overwhelming scientific consensus concludes, to varying degrees of seriousness, that global warming is an issue that must be dealt with in the very near future.  On Friday, California’s environmental protection agency published a report summarizing their research:

Increasing temperatures will transform California, threatening some of its most valuable resources in coming decades.  That’s the primary message of a new state publication that summarizes 17 scientific studies examining how global warming is expected to play out in California.

“The potential impacts of global warming are unmistakable, adding more days of deadly heat, more intense and frequent wildfires, shorter supplies of drinking water and serious public-health risks,” Linda Adams, the state’s secretary for environmental protection, said yesterday during a news conference at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.
***
“Climate change is an issue we all need to be educated about,” said Mike Chrisman, California’s secretary for resources. “We’ve got to do a better job of educating. It’s a long-term effort, (and) we’ve got to get people talking about it.”

Dan Cayan, a climate scientist at Scripps, said the general public is beginning to recognize the specter of rising temperatures. … “I think people have, in a sense, a mental scoreboard, and they’re seeing these factors accumulate,” Cayan said. “I really believe that this is becoming an issue that is starting to get taken more seriously.” (San Diego Union-Trib 8/12/06)

But don’t worry Dan, perhaps your home in Sacramento will have a better view of the water. After all much of Sacramento will be flooded by higher sea levels, so you’ll get the view of water  just by looking down at your floor.

More on the flip…

Seriously though, the danger of global warming appears to be getting a greater level of attention.  However that has yet to translate into any action on the Bush administration’s part.  However, in the state of California, we have a piece of proposed legislation to do something about all of those greenhouse emissions.  AB 32 would limit the amount of emissions, and eventually begin to turn back the clock on our emissions levels.  It’s far from sufficient, but it’s a legitimate first action.

However, Schwarzenegger wants to gut the bill.  He wants to have the legislation governed by his own appointed committe,rather than the Air Resources Board.  Further, he wants to create a bypass for the legislation if his political appointees determine that the “economics” don’t permit the emissions reductions.

It’s a short-sighted move by Arnold, just as the Bush administration has been short-sighted in their commitment to fight global warming.