Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with “incendiary rhetoric,” and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically. 

Richardson’s week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida.  Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked: 

Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?

Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, “For other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”

For a full review of Richardson’s week, continue reading.

Last week began with Richardson campaigning in Iowa.  He stepped up his rhetoric opposing the ongoing U.S. occupation in Iraq. As noted by the Rocky Mountain News:

While all the other Democrats call for an end to the conflict, Richardson goes a step further by saying virtually every American soldier – with the exception of Marine embassy guards – should be pulled out by the end of the year. He is pressuring congressional Democrats to pass a resolution by the end of the summer revoking authority for the war.

Richardson also addressed the question of the process he would employ if as President he believed war necessary:

If I am president, I would only go to war if I get authority from Congress. If you go to war, it’s my view that first you exhaust every diplomatic option, you exhaust mediation, even sanctions, build international support for your goals.  I would not hesitate to go to war if it preserved the security of this country, but I believe this administration has been too trigger-happy. And I would use diplomacy.

Richardson has been consistent on the primacy of diplomacy in conflict resolution.  On Iraq, Richardson advocated that the U.S. explore all diplomatic avenues, including returning to the U.N. and developing support within the Security Council for U.S. objectives.  Under the U.N. Charter, only the Security Council can authorize a member state to wage war. 

Richardson’s view, that the U.S. must place the matter of invading Iraq to a vote of the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was rejected by many in Congress, including John Edwards, and ultimately was the path President Bush pursued.

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson urged patience and diplomacy, criticizing the Bush Administration’s rush to war, in an interview on CNN.  At this time, polls showed most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N. Richardson explained how unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we’re going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we’re to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don’t support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it’s doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don’t do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there’s not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don’t want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don’t want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we’ve used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its 1881 resolution. And it’s not doing that. So, it’s going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that’s the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That’s the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq’s behavior, let’s do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don’t do that, I think it’s going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it’s going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it’s frustrating, but what’s the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it’s not an immediate threat. It’s not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we’re under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let’s be judicious. Let’s be calm. Let’s be patient.

While in Iowa, Richardson sat down for an interview with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register. The reporter covering the interview wrote:

Richardson might not be the best-known candidate – for now, anyway – but he might have the best credentials. His resumé includes U.S. congressman, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and governor. He served in Congress under three presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

That’s him on paper.  In person, he’s a bit beefy, his eyes scrunch up, and his body shakes when he laughs. He boasts that he holds the world’s handshaking record – more than 13,000 handshakes in eight hours. And his sense of humor comes through loud and clear. . . .

Yet he has a serious side.  It’s the side that made him a go-to envoy while still in Congress. He helped negotiate the release of the body of a U.S. Army helicopter pilot killed in North Korea in 1994. The next year, he negotiated the release of two Americans detained in Iraq. Then he secured release of three Red Cross workers being held in Sudan.

During the interview, Richardson highlighted three issues of such importance that he would make special efforts to reach bipartisan consensus: getting out of the Iraq war; setting up solid funding for Social Security and Medicare for future generations; and achieving energy independence.  The reporter added:

If that sounds like a lot, his vision for the country is equally expansive. Building an America without divisions by race or ethnicity. Launching an Apollo-like program to secure energy independence. Curing cancer. Giving the middle class a break. “My vision is to think big for this country,” he said.

On June 27th, Richardson gave a major address at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.  Richardson laid out his vision for engaging Iran and convincing Iran to halt its development of nuclear weapons.  Richardson also spoke on building support to fight international terrorism and nuclear proliferation, while bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

I am convinced that a concerted diplomatic effort, backed up by tough sanctions, undertaken with our international partners and grounded in bipartisan cooperation at home, stands an excellent chance of persuading Iran to forego nuclear weapons and to adopt more responsible policies.  We need to end the taboo on open-ended talks, so that we can begin serious, continuing, and senior-level negotiations on the full range of nuclear, Middle East security, and economic issues. . . .

We need to be absolutely clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and we need to be absolutely credible when we say what we will do about it if the Iranians continue to disregard the will of the international community. . . .

Richardson added the Bush Administration was foolish to fund Iraqi exile groups in the delusional expectation that they would somehow topple the regime, and called on Bush not to repeat the mistake with Iran:

The Bush administration foolishly tried this approach with Iraq, and we know what it got us. There is no reason to expect better results with Iran. . . No constructive dialogue with Iran is possible until we break the vicious cycle of suspicion and hostile, incendiary rhetoric. If we want Iran to improve its behavior, we would do well to stop threatening to attack them.

Bill Richardson advocated that the U.S. reach out to moderate elements in Iranian society to defuse the standoff between the two countries.  Richardson reiterated his position that the U.S. must remove all troops from Iraq as soon as possible:

The presence of American troops in Iraq fuels the insurgency and strengthens Al Qaeda.  I strongly believe that the complete withdrawal of all US military from Iraq will have a salutary effect on all of our goals in the region, including our efforts to build a better relationship with Iran, and to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Back in New Mexico, the leading state organization on environmental issues, the non-partisan Conservation Voters New Mexico gave Richardson an “A” in its annual scorecard of elected officials:

The CVNM Scorecard recognizes Governor Bill Richardson with a solid “A” for his commitment to protecting the environment. The Governor weighed in behind a strong renewable energy agenda in 2007 and exercised his veto power on several anti-conservation measures, including a line-item veto of $945,000 for “Gila basin water development”, and a pocket-veto of SB 220 that would have provided a de facto $6.9 million subsidy to the coal industry.

Sandy Buffet, the Executive Director of the CVNM applauded Richardson’s efforts to make “New Mexico the ‘Clean Energy State.‘” She also complimented Richardson for his work on a non-environmental issue, but one affecting the integrity of the state government and New Mexico elections:  uphelding strong campaign finance reporting rules from efforts by the state legislature to reverse progessive statutes.

In response Richardson stated:

We have worked closely with all those who seek to conserve our water, air and public lands and establish New Mexico as the clean energy state — and this grade shows we’ve worked well together.  Having enacted 23 pro-conservation bills this year, this legislative session was an unprecedented success with significant increases to our renewable energy portfolio standard, passage of the surface owner’s protection act and the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority.

On the political front, independent polls issued last week re-confirmed Richardson’s growing support in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The campaign’s internal poll released to the media showed Richardson at 13% in Iowa, and at 18% (above Obama) among likely caucus voters.  And, in in action I believe is related to Richardson’s rise in the polls, the week also saw Obama launch TV ads in Iowa and Edwards commence a TV campaign in New Hampshire. 

In response to Richardson’s momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com explained, “While Richardson is still in fourth place in both states (5th in NH if you include Gore), his is the only trajectory that is clearly moving up.” 

The positive trend in Iowa polls was noticed by reporters in the state:

Lending credence to a poll showing his support has jumped to double digits among likely Iowa caucus-goers, Bill Richardson attracted more than 200 people to a “job interview” in Iowa City. The Democratic governor of New Mexico made an impression Tuesday with the folks who will be doing the “hiring” when Iowans caucus in January.

“He’s the ‘been there, done that’ guy in the field” of Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, Sally Peck of West Branch said of listening to Richardson. “He’s not just mouthing platitudes. He has the experience others don’t.”

For months, Richardson has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform in harmony with the ideals upon which our nation was founded.  In a speech last December at Georgetown University, Richardson spoke on the issue:

I come here today as a border state Governor, and a  Hispanic-American who knows that our nation can no longer afford to  ignore the issue of illegal immigration. I come here as a Democrat who  believes my party has an obligation as the new majority party to pass  comprehensive legislation to reform our immigration laws. And I come  here as someone who believes it’s time for our leaders to tell the  simple truth about this — and every other — issue.

Today, there are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Most are law abiding, except for the fact that they have entered this country illegally. And almost all have come here to work — to build a  better life for themselves and their families, just as previous generations of immigrants have done.

Eleven million people living in the shadows is a huge problem, and we need to address it intelligently and thoughtfully — and urgently. If Congress fails to do so, it will only get worse, and the demagoguery about it which we have heard so much of recently will only get louder.

Sadly, Richardson’s prediction that the demagoguery on immigration would only get worse proved true last week. Following the failure of the Senate to advance a bill, Richardson stated:

I am deeply disappointed. You can’t solve a problem by ignoring it. We have got to find a way to bridge the divide and bring people together to address the critical problems facing our nation — immigration, energy, healthcare, education. This is the price America pays for divisive leadership. Congress should continue to work on passing immigration reform.

Richardson explained further his opposition to the Senate immigration bill, while calling for immigration reform, in an address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on June 30, 2007 in Orlando, Florida.  As reported in the Boston Globe:

“The Congress failed to pass an immigration act, and they must return” to it, said Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a lawmaker of Hispanic background who received one of the most enthusiastic receptions among the seven Democratic candidates for president from the members of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials.

“But it was a bad bill. What I objected to was that they stopped working” on it, Richardson said. He decried that he called an overly onerous provision that would have required undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries to be considered for a green card giving them permanent legal status.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune, at the same conference Obama decried an “ugly undertone that crept into the debate” this year. Yet, Obama defended his vote last year to build the 700-mile fence along U.S. boarder with Mexico because that provision was just one part in a “much more humane” reform bill.  This was not the case.  The “Secure Fence Act of 2006” that Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden voted for contained only provisions authorizing the wall and securing the border. Richardson has consistently opposed the border wall as ineffective, a terrible symbol for America and in conflict with our goal of seeking Mexico’s cooperaton on immigration issues.

The Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the Florida conference continued:

But Richardson landed the hardest punch with the crowd when he suggested that the failure to pass fair immigration laws is due partly to a societal failure to recognize that “immigration has historically been a very positive element.”

“I have a message to the American media,” Richardson said. “Do you notice when they depict immigrants, they have somebody crossing a wall … as if they’re criminals? How about the American media looking at the farmworker who breaks his back? How about the American media covering the Latino immigrant that has died for this country?”

Richardson added:  “I’m not running as a Latino candidate. I’m running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino.”

There has been significant blog commentary on the Democratic Presidential debate last Thursday at Howard University.  I won’t add anything further with one exception.  Much of the commentary focused on style and ignored the substance of the candidates’ statements. In particular, on the question of economic growth and tax unfairness, Richardson set forth an unique vision. 

Richardson’s voice is important as he is the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive branch experience and success in working with local communities, private corporations and public entities in creating thousands of new, quality jobs. 

Richardson advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts at the very top of the income bracket, which other candidates did as well.  But Richardson would go much further by replacing the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts for the middle class and to promote job growth, including in the inner cities and rural areas.  Richardson stated: 

We need to rebuild this economy by being pro-growth Democrats. We should be the party of innovation, of entrepreneurship, of building capital, getting capital for African American small businesses. We need to find a way in this country that we say that globalization must work for the middle class.

Finally, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for the San Francisco Bay Area, profiled Richardson last week:

B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn, who was born and raised in New Mexico and whose family has been involved in the state’s politics – an uncle served as a state legislator and then the state’s Democratic Party chair in the 1950s and 1960s – first met Richardson when he served as a congressman.

“I really think he is the most qualified Democrat in the race for president,” Horn wrote in an e-mail. “His track record is exceptional. He’s done a fine job as governor … and was re-elected with around 70 percent of the vote.”

Horn, who said he expects to make an endorsement in the primary but has yet to back a candidate, said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record.

“If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don’t need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that,” wrote Horn. “His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar.”

Will California’s high speed rail project survive Arnold’s budget cuts – and if so, how will it get built? George Skelton’s Monday LA Times column turns its attention to the issue, with some important insights about the current status of the plan. With an excellent excoriation of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s unwillingness to lead on the issue, despite his public claims of support for the project, Skelton also questions some recent decisions of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) regarding the implementation schedule of the project.

The first part of the column focuses on Arnold’s lack of support for the project. A few weeks back he published an op-ed in the Fresno Bee claiming to support the project. As I noted in response, this seemed to be a bit of smoke and mirrors, as Arnold continued to seek cuts for the plan behind the scenes.

Skelton’s column lays this point out further, noting that such an interpretation is prevailing wisdom in Sacramento, and that Arnold wants to preserve the funding capacity for more dams and freeways, despite the obvious environmental benefits of high speed rail. Quentin Kopp, the longtime San Francisco supervisor, state senator, and judge, who now runs the CHSRA, argues that if Arnold would come out and champion the project publicly, the battle would be “80% over.”

Skelton also correctly points out the flaws of Arnold’s claim that the CHSRA funding plan is inadequate – that there’s no way federal or private financers will commit until the state has indicated its support through a vote:

Most everybody outside the governor’s office considers this naive. Until California voters commit to the project, seasoned pols note, no private investors or government officials will. Besides, no one knows who’s going to be in charge in Washington after 2008. And about the only Sacramentan with the ability to coax Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi into a negotiating room is Schwarzenegger, who isn’t lifting a finger for high-speed rail.

In short, Arnold himself is the key to the CHSRA funding plan – and he refuses to act in that capacity. What better place to get some of CA’s tax money returned from DC, as Arnold famously claimed he could do during the 2003 recall election, than to secure federal aid for the project?

The contrast between Arnold’s stated support and his actual efforts to kill the project led State Sen. Dean Florez, a Central Valley Democrat, to bitterly remark “Obviously, the governor’s budget writers don’t read his Op-Ed pieces.”

To Skelton, however, a bigger problem may be self-inflicted. He argues that the CHSRA’s decision to make an Anaheim-SF line the first phase of the project built is a recipe for political disaster. He quotes some important legislators who argue that by leaving Sacramento and San Diego to “some future lifetime” – implying that the plan to build to those cities is merely a vague promise – it will become more difficult for voters to support it, especially if their region is left out. Some of the quotes:

“If the project actually has a life, it’s going to have to include Sacramento,” says Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento)…

“I don’t see how they could leave out San Diego and have this make sense,” [Senate Budget Chair Denise Moreno] Ducheny says. “I can’t imagine why anybody in San Diego would vote for it.”

Given these alarmist quotes, what exactly happened at last week’s CHSRA board meeting? Clearly the board believes that the HSR system, like all other rail systems in the country as well as HSR systems around the world, cannot be built all at once. That seems a sensible point. They focused on Anaheim to SF via Merced for the following reasons, as defined in this report:

-This route is the “backbone of the network” which will likely bring in the most riders and the most private financing.

-The SD to LA route is plagued by “considerable uncertainty.” CHSRA argues that SCAG (SoCal Association of Governments) and SANDAG (SD Association of Governments) are more interested in Maglev technology to finish the route.

Granted, I’m somewhat new to this issue, but that doesn’t strike me as a very good reason to leave SD out. Someone need to coordinate CHSRA, SCAG, and SANDAG on finalizing a route and a technology. There’s no need to let local governments go their own way, and if we had leadership coming from Sacto, this might not be a problem (and I am not yet sure that it really is).

Russ Jackson of the Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada (RailPAC) fills in some of the details here:

Arguments were made during the meeting by Commissioner Lynn Schenk that leaving out San Diego would cripple the potential for the project goals stated above, and probably bury that extension for a very long time. She “could not vote for the plan as proposed if San Diego were left out.”…

Jackson goes on to note that in the 1980s a plan to build a bullet train down the I-5 corridor along the San Diego County coast was killed for a number of reasons, including uncertain funding, lack of US Marine Corps approval to use Camp Pendleton land, and NIMBY opposition – but that CHSRA avoided that mistake by choosing an inland alignment, along Interstate 15.

It seems that not enough has been done to resolve these local issues. Why on earth is SCAG and SANDAG pushing for the expensive and untested maglev technology when CHSRA’s plan is much more solid, reliable, and utilizes existing and successful technology? And why hasn’t this dispute been resolved by now, some 7 years after the initial planning for the HSR project began?

Obviously no project of this scale can be built all at once. It might make sense to give voters a clear timeline – LA to SF by 2020, Sacto extension by 2022, LA to SD by 2025, something like that. But there must be a clear plan to tie the main metro regions into the network, something that can suggest to voters that the plans to get to their metro area are not just made out of thin air.

Voters – and interested members of the media – should also be reminded that the 2002 enabling legislation approving the CHSRA plan and scheduling a November 2004 vote on the bonds (pushed back twice) mandated  that LA to SF be the first route funded (scroll to page 23). This would help justify the emphasis on LA to SF while also reminding folks that is just the start of a system, not its end.

For most rail systems, getting the first line built is the most difficult. Once a segment is in operation other regions clamor for inclusion. This was true of the LACMTA’s lines, it’s true here in Seattle, where a light rail system is a year or two away from its first segment completion, and it’s been true for European high speed rail networks as well.

However, without restoring CHSRA’s funding in this budget cycle, the questions over phasing are moot. Happily there seems to have been some improvements in the budget outlook. In a comment on a HSR diary at California Progress Report, John Shields claims “A California Senate subcommittee on the 22nd May approved a $45.2 million budget for Cal HSR”, which comports with some of the things I’ve heard as well. It’s not the full $103 million but it’s also a far sight better than the piddly $5 million Arnold had offered.

Russ Jackson of RailPAC offers this assessment, which I endorse:

In this writer’s opinion, by eliminating San Diego and not resolving the issue over Maglev with SCAG, not serving the Riverside area, without defining its route into the Bay Area, not serving Sacramento in the initial phase, and not serving the Bay Area to Sacramento segment, the CAHSRA has doomed itself to losing large blocks of votes for the $9 billion bond issue (if it ever gets on the ballot). As desirable as high-speed rail is for the state, it’s what the local folks think they want to approve for other areas to benefit from that will determine the project’s future.

Ultimately the CHSRA plan will require a champion. It took Al Gore to convince the world global warming was a fact, something that we should have realized over a decade ago. It will take Michael Moore to convince America that our health care crisis is real and that universal single-payer care is a viable solution, although Americans have been fighting for this for over a hundred years. Who will step up for high speed rail?

My earlier HSR diaries:

Why is Arnold Trying to Terminate High Speed Rail?

Save the High Speed Rail Project!

Democrats  Will Have to Save California Public Transportation from Schwarzenegger’s Budget

Last week I explained to you all California’s plan for a true high speed rail system that would link the state’s major metropolitan areas, and described how Arnold Schwarzenegger was trying to terminate the plan.

Since then there has been a great deal of activity in the state, ahead of a crucial meeting in Sacramento this week on funding for the project. There now appears to be some significant movement from Arnold’s office toward a supportive position. However, there is still a long way to go, and your help is needed to ensure that California does the right thing and saves this project.

Note: For a full explanation of the California high speed rail plan, see my diary from last week

Is Democratic Pressure Bringing Arnold Around?

As of a few weeks ago it looked like Arnold was trying to kill the project outright. The CHSRA (California High Speed Rail Authority) plan was originally slated to go before voters in November 2004. That was postponed to November 2006 and again to November 2008. In Arnold’s initial budget proposal he suggested postponing the vote indefinitely and slashing CHSRA’s budget to a mere $1 million, barely enough to keep the office open.

Since news of this got a wider hearing, there has been a significant amount of pushback, especially from Democrats. The California Democratic Party, at its annual convention in San Diego two weekends ago, passed a resolution strongly supportive of the plan. Activists from around the state began calling their legislators and rallying support for the project.

Now it appears Arnold has budged – to some degree on this all-important project. In a letter to the Fresno Bee last Friday, Arnold announced that “the state must build high speed rail”:

But let me be clear: I strongly support high-speed rail for California, and especially for the San Joaquin Valley. Increasing the Valley’s transportation options, especially after voters passed Proposition 1B to repair Highway 99, would better serve the region’s growing population and enhance the Valley’s critical importance to our state’s economy.

The promise of high-speed rail is incredible. Looking forward to the kind of California we want to build 20 and 30 years from now, a network of ultra-fast rail lines whisking people from one end of the state to the other is a viable and important transportation alternative and would be a great benefit to us all.

On the surface this sounds great. Clearly Arnold understands that this project – the most important project proposed for  California in the last 45 years – cannot be allowed to die. And that is a major victory for our side.

However, careful parsing of his letter indicates how much work we have left to do to truly save this project, and just how little faith we can have in Arnold’s apparent “support” at this time.

The Outstanding Issues: Funding

The bulk of Arnold’s letter to the Bee is a claim that the CHSRA does not have adequate funding identified. The proposal that will go before voters in November 2008 will provide $10 billion in bonds, out of a projected $40 billion cost. Arnold’s letter asks where the rest of this money will come from.

The CHSRA has always maintained that the $10 billion is necessary seed money to convince the federal government and private investors that they can invest in the project and provide for the remaining costs.

Steven T. Jones, a reporter for the truly excellent San Francisco Bay Guardian, notes that these claims are not totally correct, and that major bond houses like Lehman Bros believe that state seed money – in this case, $10 billion – WILL bring in private capital and convince the bond market that the project is worthy of their support.

Arnold’s letter to the Bee makes the CHSRA plan sound like another flawed and unfunded government project and posits a false “chicken and egg” problem. In fact this is by no means the case, as the necessary starting point – $10 billion in state bonds – has already been identified, and a whole lot of people, from venture capitalists to the aforementioned bond market are convinced this will break the logjam and produce the remaining $30 billion. In short, CHSRA has already identified where the remaining money will come from, although they understandably cannot get a firm commitment from the private sector until they get a firm commitment from the public sector.

Arnold’s Unspoken Caveats

As Steven T. Jones noted, Arnold’s administration has not answered this point, nor has it addressed the nonpartisan, no BS Legislative Analyst’s Office report that says there can be no more delays on the project – it is time to vote.

Instead the letter to the Bee suggests Arnold wants to do with high speed rail what he’s done with climate change – adopt a posture of support for action, but in practice do nothing that will actually produce action. Arnold claims to “propose additional funding” in his budget for CHSRA but this is unspecified and probably an effort to claim his paltry $1 million proposal for the 2007-08 budget as “additional funding.” Nor does he commit to a 2008 vote, which everyone else involved agrees is key to the success of the high speed rail project. Reading Arnold’s letter carefully, one finds he talks a big game, but does not actually provide any firm assurances that high speed rail will go ahead. Instead he seems to want “more study,” which as anyone with knowledge of politics knows, is pretty much a statement of nonsupport.

What might be at the root of Arnold’s opposition? Last week I speculated that his millions in campaign contributions from oil companies might have something to do with it. Surely that plays a role. But as Steven T. Jones notes, it is also partly because wants to use the state’s bond capacity for other things – like more prisons, more dams, more freeways. In other words, things the state needs less of, instead of high speed rail, a transformative project that will add much more to the state’s economy and long-term needs than a prison or a dam or a freeway.

How YOU Can Help Save High Speed Rail

As I said at the beginning, there is a all-important hearing in Sacramento this week regarding the project. A State Senate Budget Subcommittee will meet to determine the fate of CHSRA funding – whether Arnold’s paltry $1 million sum will stand, or whether the full funding needs of $130 million to keep the CHSRA alive will be provided. The Bay Rail Alliance has provided the crucial contact information:

Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 hearing
Thursday, May 10
@ 10 AM or upon adjournment of the previous session,
Room 112, State Capitol
item 2665, the High Speed Rail Authority’s budget

Members of Senate Budget Sub 4 Committee

1) Senator Michael Machado (Chair)
Senate District 5 – Tracy, Manteca and Stockton in San Joaquin County; Suisun City, Fairfield, Dixon and Vacaville in Solano County; Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland in Yolo County; as well as Walnut Grove and a portion of Elk Grove in Sacramento County.

Phone:  (916) 651-4005
Fax:  (916) 323-2304

State Capitol, Room 5066
Sacramento,  CA  95814

2) Senator Robert Dutton (Republican)
Senate District 31 – southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and the northwestern portion of Riverside County: all of Big Bear, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Upland, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley, Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, Mentone, Running Springs, An Antonio Heights and portions of San Bernardino and Colton; all of Riverside, Glen Avon, Highgrove, Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, Sunnyslope and all but a small portion of Woodcrest.

State Capitol, Room 5094
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4031
Fax: (916) 327-2272

3) Senator Christine Kehoe – Democrat from San Diego
Phone:  (916) 651-4039
Fax:  (916) 327-2188  State Capitol, Room 4038  Sacramento,  CA  95814

Location:
State Capitol building, room 112, Sacramento

If you live in these districts, by all means, CALL! Even if you don’t there may well be value in calling them to let them know of your strong support for high speed rail. Of course, if you can attend the hearing, by all means do so. I wish I could be there, but unfortunately I cannot.

Some overviews of why high speed rail is a good and necessary project can be found:

– In my comprehensive CA High Speed Rail diary from last week
– An excellent letter from the Bay Rail Alliance

There may also be value in contacting Arnold’s office, to explain how valuable the project will be in terms of transportation alternatives, traffic relief, sustainable development, reducing pollution, slowing global warming, and providing jobs. To contact the governator:

Main contact page E-mail link

Call him! (916) 445-2841

Write him a letter! Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

More contact info for important state legislators can be found in my original CHSRA diary.

Help us save high speed rail in California!

Crossposted to Blue House Diaries and Daily Kos

Over the last few months more and more of the netroots have recognized the importance of upgrading our transportation infrastructure to meet our capacity demands while also providing a sustainable and green method of transit. Diaries by apsmith, BruceMcF, quaoar and A Siegel have all zeroed in on high speed rail as a particularly useful and desirable way to provide Americans with an effective, reliable, and green way to travel between our cities.

So far their work has been largely in explaining the theory of why high speed rail would be a good fit for America. While other states kick around abstract ideas, California has had since 2002 a complete plan for high speed rail – with the all important EIR/EIS finalized – to link the state’s major metro areas – San Francisco, Oakland, San José, Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles, OC, Riverside, and San Diego – with a true high-speed system.

But even though the plan is ready to go, the LA Times reports it may be Terminated by our “green” governor.

The governor wants “to quietly kill this – and not go out and tell the people that high-speed rail isn’t in the future,” said state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter). The lawmaker from the southern San Joaquin Valley is counting on the trains to help bring jobs to his district.

Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature in his 2007 budget to slash money for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The governor also wants lawmakers to postpone indefinitely a $9.95-billion rail bond issue that is slated to appear on the November 2008 ballot.

Background

The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was created in 1996 to devise a plan to link Northern and Southern California by high speed rail. In 2000 voters authorized the CHSRA to finalize a route and a construction plan, which was presented to the Legislature in 2002. The Legislature then automatically put it on the November 2004 ballot.

And then it was delayed. The early Zeroes were a period of fiscal crisis for California, costing Gray Davis his job and leading Arnold Schwarzenegger to seek to limit state spending. Tom McClintock, a notorious right-wing State Senator, authored a bill in 2004 to kill the project outright. A compromise was reached where the vote would be delayed to November 2006. However, that was the ballot where Arnold was pushing his various infrastructure bonds, for everything from roads to levees to dams, and worried that high speed rail might be a bridge too far and weigh down the vote of the other proposals. Another deal was cut, and now the CHSRA plan is slated to go before voters in November 2008. This is what Arnold is trying to stop.

The Plan

And it’s a shame, too, because the plan is really quite good. It’s worth spending a moment to examine it, to see just how good it is and therefore how awful its cancellation would be.

(From the CAHSR and assumed to be in the public domain)

As you can see, the planned line would link nearly all of the major population centers of California. And even those areas not included, like Monterey Bay (where I will soon be living) will benefit from the system – whereas it currently takes 6 hours to drive from Monterey to LA, it would likely take only 3-4 hours via a drive to San José and then the train to LA.

(A note: the shaded area between the Bay Area and the Central Valley is because the CHSRA hasn’t yet settled on whether to use the Pacheco Pass (along Highway 152) or the Altamont Pass (along I-580) to link the two regions.)

According to the CHSRA Implementation Plan these are some of the core components of the project:

– 42 to 68 million passengers a year by 2020
– Fully grade-separated and built along existing highway corridors (to lower costs and minimize disruption to urban landscape)
– Trains capable of at least 220mph
– Powered by overhead electrical wires, providing a greener source of energy. Trains will also return power to the grid when they brake.

Scroll down to page 13 on the Implementation Plan, and you will see just how much time the high speed trains will save Californians on common trips within the state:

LA to SF: 7.5 hrs by car. 1 hour 20 by plane – but “door to door” (including getting to the airport, security checks, check-in lines, etc) it is nearly 3.5 hours. By high speed train it would be about 2.5 hours on the train and about 3.5 hours door to door – about the same as a plane, but at a much lower cost to our planet.

LA to SD: 2.5 hours by car (unless you hit traffic, then god knows how long!). 2.75 hrs by plane (but few people fly between LA and SD) and 2.25 hrs by train. A significant – and reliable – savings, considering that on the high speed line between LA and SD you won’t have to worry about the East LA Interchange, the bottleneck through Norwalk, the Orange Crush, the El Toro Y, the 5/805 merge.

The line will not be a single point-to-point route but a mixture of express, local, and semi-local trains. It will provide several levels of efficient and quick service to Californians.

What will it cost? The current estimate is around $30 billion. $10 billion of that will come from state bonds, which will seed the project and entice private investment to make up the other $20 billion. Ridership will help pay off these bonds.

Will the riders come? As every other high speed rail project has proven, absolutely. The Acela between Washington DC and Boston has already made a significant dent in air travel along the Northeast Corridor. The Spanish AVE line between Madrid and Barcelona is having a similar impact, even though the line currently only reaches Tarragona (just short of Barcelona, which will be linked by the end of the year). And even California’s existing slower-speed rail corridors are showing record numbers of riders. The demand is clearly there.

Why We Need High Speed Rail

CHSRA is the most important project facing Californians since Pat Brown built the California Aqueduct in 1960. It’s that simple. Here’s why.

First, the state’s existing oil-based transportation infrastructure is reaching the limits of its capacity. Although one can drive from LA to SF in about 6.5 hours (fast if you’re a leadfoot) this can take up to *10 hours* via I-5 on a holiday weekend. Within the megalopolis – SoCal or Bay Area – travel by car is becoming less and less possible, even when tanker trucks aren’t melting away the MacArthur Maze.

California’s airports are already stressed. LAX expansion plans have been frequently postponed because of soaring costs, and other SoCal airports from John Wayne to Burbank face similar limits. SFO cannot be expanded at all and OAK is nearing its limit. SAN (SD’s airport) is one of the nation’s worst, but efforts to move it to Miramar have been blocked by the US Navy. And yet more and more people are using California’s roads and airports – our population is pushing 40 million and may be nearing 50 million in a few generations. Clearly alternative capacity is needed.

And that doesn’t even take into account Peak Oil. As many of you know, the production of oil around the world is near or has reached its peak. From here on out we will not only be extracting less oil, but will be paying more for it because much of the remaining oil is harder to reach.

Already we are seeing soaring gas prices. Many Californians are now paying around $3.50 a gallon and will likely be the first in the lower 48 to hit $4 this summer. This will also make air travel even more costly.

To protect our environment, to slow global warming, to protect against peak oil, and to provide a less expensive way for residents of our great Golden State to connect with each other, we have NO OTHER CHOICE but to build high speed rail.

We have a solid plan. We have the clear need. We have pent-up demand.

And now we have political support.

At the California Democratic Party Convention over the weekend in San Diego, a strong resolution was passed in favor of the HSR plan. As transcribed by dday over at Calitics, the resolution reads:

WHEREAS, the CA High Speed Rail Authority has made significant progress since it was established in 1996 to create fast rail service between Southern CA and San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento and the Central Valley to give the public a travel choice between HSR, automobiles and airplanes – thus relieving the growing highway and airport congestion in a state in which the population is expected to grow by 12 million to a total of 50 million by 2025; and

WHEREAS, high speed rail is already successful in Japan, Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Australia, China, Taiwan and South Korea, and construction is underway in North Africa, Turkey, Mexico and South America – setting a standard for California, where HSR could carry passengers between downtown San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 1/2 hours in more comfort and safety and in less time than it takes to travel to and from and check in and out of airports, thus enabling airlines to better serve long-distance travelers; and

WHEREAS, high speed rail will be a significant weapon against air pollution and global warming as it uses much less energy per passenger than cars and airplanes – and HSR will be even more essential if, as expected, petroleum supplies diminish in the future;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the CDP asks that all CA elected officials give full support to establishing HSR in CA at the earliest possible date.

Why Arnold Is Trying to Terminate It

Given the obvious arguments in favor of the project, and its widespread political support (virtually all cities along the proposed line have been clamoring for a stop, and workers and unions eye the good middle-class wage paying work that will come with building the line), why on earth is Arnold Schwarzenegger trying to kill it?

Although Arnold has received a reputation lately for being an environmentalist, this is complete and utter nonsense. Arnold gutted many of the mandatory trading provisions of the global warming emissions cap proposal. The League of Conservation Voters gave Arnold a 50 rating (out of 100) and said his record remained “mediocre.” And he has received well over $1 million in campaign contributions from Big Oil.

In his infrastructure funding priorities Arnold is as Republican as it gets in his emphasis on freeways over public transportation. LA and the Bay Area are getting showered with money out of the infrastructure bond to build more freeway capacity, yet Arnold’s budget still projects a CUT in public transportation funds. (Look for a diary on specifically this issue soon.)

Further, Arnold personally has little interest in mass transit. He owns a Hummer, and thinks environmentally friendly transportation is converting the Hummer to hydrogen – finding non-auto based forms of transportation seems totally off his radar screen. When he goes on MTV’s “Pimp My Ride” he’s not there to explain how California needs to adapt to the 21st century, he’s there to tell viewers that the fantasies of the 20th century regarding endless gas supplies and a limitless car culture can somehow still remain viable.

Between his own blinders, his very real debt to the oil companies (who have a strong motive to see HSR killed) and his fraudulent rhetoric on the environment, it is unsurprising, yet all the more maddening, that Arnold wants to kill this important project.

What You Can Do

But so far as I can tell, California remains a democracy, whatever else has happened to it on the national level. And we the people can still push back against Arnold and protect this transformative and vital project against his efforts to Terminate it.

Perhaps the first thing to do is let Arnold know that you think he is totally and completely in the wrong on this. Contact him!

E-mail him

Call him! (916) 445-2841

Write him a letter! Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Equally as important is the state legislature. We need to target Democrats to ensure they stand by us and by their party convention in protecting high speed rail. Important Democrats include the following (links are to contact pages):

Sen. Don Perata, President of the State Senate (510) 286-1333 or (916) 651-4009

Sen. Alan Lowenthal, chair of Senate Transportation Committee (562) 495-4766 or (916) 651-4027

Fabian Núñez (e-mail link), Speaker of the Assembly. (213) 620-4646 or (916) 319-2046

Assemblymember John Laird, head of Assembly Budget Committee (hence a powerful person). (831) 649-2832 or (916) 319-2027

There may also be value in going to the dark side – that is, Republicans. Assemblymember Bob Huff was quoted in the /LA Times/ as saying he thought this might be a good transportation alternative but worried about the cost. Pushing him into a pro-HSR camp might pay big dividends. His webpage is here (it loads poorly on my Firefox, though) and phone numbers are 909-860-5560 or (916) 319-2060.

I supposed you could try Sen. Tom McClintock, who has repeatedly tried to kill HSR and is one of CA’s most notorious right-wingers. If you want to, a Google search for his name should provide all the info you’ll need.

Finally, there is this video put out by the CAHSR on YouTube about the project:

Spread the information far and wide. Let’s build support for this vital and sensible project, and stare down Arnold Schwarzenegger and save California’s high speed rail.

Yesterday the Calitics staff sat down with Sen. Christopher Dodd, Senate Banking Committee chair and candidate for President in 2008, for about a 30-minute interview.  Dodd impressed me as someone who thinks clearly about issues and the implications of them, who carefully ponders all of his decisions, and who always strives to do the right thing.  In other words, a Democrat.

He’s also embraced new media, hiring Tim Tagaris, who should be familiar to the netroots as having worked on Ned Lamont’s campaign (here’s a bio).  Dodd talked about the new media era and how it can impact a campaign like his that is looking to get their views out in the face of the media-hyped monster that his Hillack Clintobama.

The full interview (not transcribed, but paraphrased) on the flip:

We asked Dodd about the role that blogs and the Internet are playing in his campaign.  During last week’s debate, they set up a live streaming “war room” where people could watch his staff react to portions of the debate (Dodd actually criticized the debate format in his convention speech, which I thought was accurate).  He said that his campaign cannot “rely on what’s filtered through the traditional media.”  He talked about how he can read articles on the Presidential race, and see where his portion of the story “died on the editor’s desk,” because you only have so many column inches and you have to talk about Hillary and you have to talk about Obama.  The Tom Friedman quote that Brian Williams brought up in the debate (“nobody has come up with a specific energy and environmental policy”) really stung him, because Dodd HAS done just that, and he said that he sent it to Friedman to boot.  We talk about the proposal later.

Now I’ll segue into a Q-and-A shorthand format.

Next question: When the media does stop at the Hillary-Obama phenomenon, how do you react to that?

A: “We’re building an operation solidly.”  Dodd believes in an almost architectural way to build an organization, by making the underlying structure solid.  Iowa and Nevada, he said, are all about organization; getting people to stay in caucuses for two hours and horse trade with their neighbors requires it.  And in New Hampshire, he’s a fellow New Englander.  His crowds are “decent-sized”.  And people seem to have an “amnesia about the last election,” where Kerry’s organization in Iowa was solid enough to help him win that race.

Q: Talk about the corporate carbon tax.

A: Dodd believes he can generate 50-100 billion dollars annually through this tax, which can be put into alternative energy programs.  This will have the effect of equalizing price for peopple.  People want to go green, but if it’s cost-prohibitive and they’re struggling to get by, they may not make the sacrifice.  It makes it easier to purchase things like wind and solar and ethanol, etc.  Dodd said that he got a great response on the proposal, particularly from Al Gore.  He also wants to mandate a 50mpg fuel economy standard by 2017.  I’ll quote his Boston Globe op-ed for a more detailed description:

That’s why, in addition to whatever else we do, America must enact a corporate carbon tax. Used in conjunction with cap and trade systems that allow clean corporations to sell pollution credits to dirtier companies, a corporate carbon tax can be implemented quickly, affect every energy sector, and above all provide the strongest disincentive possible to polluting.

Some argue that corporations would simply pass on costs of a corporate carbon tax to consumers. But in an era where the price of gasoline already jumps 30 to 40 cents in only a few weeks’ time, such arguments ring decidedly hollow. You cannot be serious about acting on the urgent threat of global warming, about making us less captive to Middle East oil, or investing in renewable energy, unless you have a corporate carbon tax that eliminates the last incentive to pollute: that it’s cheaper. With all we are facing — from health and environmental concerns to war abroad — making dirty energy a less attractive option to consumers and business is nothing to be afraid of.

But it’s particularly attractive because the revenues of a corporate carbon tax can be used to bring the cost of clean energy down. Used to fast-track renewable energy research and development and deployment of clean energy and energy efficient technologies, a corporate carbon tax would generate more than $50 billion annually, helping us get technologies out of the laboratories and onto our roads and into our homes and businesses, jumpstarting America’s global competitiveness in the process.

Dodd also described it as a jobs program, and that the jobs of the 21st century can be alternative energy jobs.

Q: On Iraq, what are your thoughts on what to do after the expected veto of the funding bill with a withdrawal date?

A: “Any bill you send without definition is wrong.”  Bush obviously wants to play out the string and hand this problem to the next President.  This is the first Administration in his history in the Congress that treats diplomacy as a threat or a weakness.  Dodd would ramp up diplomacy and political solutions to the problem of Iraq.  He says that he gets people coming up to him all the time, Democrats and Republicans, who say “Don’t quit on this.”  Dodd is also a co-sponsor of Feingold-Reid.  I’m happy with his stance on Iraq.

Q: What is the status of your legislation restoring habeas corpus?

A: Not moving.  But he’s committed to the issue.  “When I first introduced it, I thought it would go over people’s heads,” would be too obscure.  He didn’t realize how widely held this opinion was that we need to restore habeas corpus, that it speaks to who we are as Americans.

Dodd talked about how the best advocates of his bill were the senior officers of JAG.  They understand that you cannot torture people or detain them indefinitely without telling them why they were charged.  He talked about all the reasons why you have to change the law.  And he said that if he were President, “I don’t know what I could fix by executive order.”  I said, “If you’re like this President, everything.”  Big laugh.  I killed with Chris Dodd.

Q: Talk about Webb and Tester.

A: He has a lot of respect for them.  Called Tester “a keeper” and great with his constituents.

Q: Talk about jobs and why so many people think they’re falling behind.

A: We need more union households.  Ben Bernanke made a speech in Omaha where he admitted that less union households have increased inequality.  Dodd has offered legislation to overturn the Kentucky River case, where people listed as supervisors cannot organize.  He talked about rising costs in energy, education, health care.  And he said that the GI bill was so successful in getting so many to college and into a good job.

He also mentioned that real unemployment is probably twice as much as reported, because it doesn’t count those who haven’t looked for work or have stopped looking.  And he said that 10 million households in this country haven’t been to a bank.  We need to get people out of the shadows and into that system.

Dodd finished by talking about trust.  Elections are rarely about the candidate; people want to know if you’re listening to them (a primal reaction).  He thinks America is not that divded and is just looking for leadership to get them from A to D and not A to Z.

Q: Talk about how you are interacting with Joe Lieberman now.

A: This was a great answer, and I encouraged Dodd to keep talking about it.  He had a 40-year relationship with Lieberman.  It was a tough choice for him to back Ned Lamont.  And ultimately, he said, “I did the right thing” because he respected the wishes of the voters.  He said Ned was a great candidate and would have made a great Senator.

OK, that was it.

(Oops! Forgot the Field poll link (PDF) – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

And I don’t disagree.  I just heard a new Cheveron Ad, and they were super-psyched about finding some new oil field that will allow us to continue to pollute for generations to come. Yay!!  Well, Field Research has just released one of their awesome Field polls, this time on how gas prices are affecting ordinary Californians.  Apparently, 70% of Californians see gas prices as a “serious” situation (either very serious or somewhat serious), with the amount of people saying “Very serious” up to 35% from 32% in August 2005.

And I’m not going to quibble with that.  Adjustment to a new price condition is ahrd.  DUde, I saw $4 regular gas for the first time yesterday. $4.09.9 to be exact. Yowsers! (I won’t go to that station, it’s an outlier b.c of it’s convenience to the highway.  But, folks, yeah, you are going to have to adjust to these new conditions.

If you look at this cool graph (right) from the Department of Energy, you’ll see that, oh, um, yeah we are the green line on the bottom $4 cheaper than European prices.  Don’t you think they are hurt by these energy prices too?  Well, instead of just blaming Chevron (and ya, i’m cool with that as well), what else can we do to make our economy more competitive in a market that is just going to have expensive gas prices? How about adding more rail services and other public transportation? Increasing the CAFE standards? Taxing gas hogs?

Look, gas ain’t going to get a whole lot cheaper, so how about spending a little more effort to address conservation and replacement technologies? And sure, keep blaming Chevron…they can handle it.

Got questions about climate change, energy policy, peak oil, and the science of fueling our lives? Well, then you should really come on over to the cafe and get yourself some answers!

Join us and our panel as we look at the status of energy today and the policy and scientific solutions. Are you worried about peak oil? Feel a squeeze from high gas prices? Come to the Science Cafe Energy Forum and participate in a panel discussion on energy and the issues we face today.

Panel:
– U.S. Rep. John Campbell (R-Newport Beach)
– Dr. Mark Musculus, Sandia National Laboratories California
– Mr. Jim Maclay, Doctoral Candidate (LEED Certified), UC Irvine National Fuel Cell Research Center

Moderator:
Mr. Pat Brennan, Environment Editor, The Orange County Register

Follow me after the flip for all the details about today’s event…

OK, the details as promised:

Program (Begins at 3:00 PM):
1) 5 minutes: intro by Brian Hart, Astrophysicist, who is director
and host
2) 10 minutes: Video clip from
NOVA scienceNOW.

3) 20 minutes: Presentation by U.S. Representative, John Campbell
(R-Newport Beach) on Energy Policy

4) 20 minutes: Presentation by Dr.
Mark Musculus, Combustion Research
Facility, Sandia National
Laboratories California

5) 20 minutes: Presentation by
Mr. Jim Maclay, Doctoral Candidate
(LEED Certified), from UC Irvine
National Fuel Cell Research Center
on Fuel Cells and UC Irvine research
into this promising new technology

6) 30 minutes: Question and Answer
session and discussion with
panelists

7) 10 minutes: Each panelist will
have an opportunity to close by
inviting the audience to learn
more about their affiliated
institutions

8) 2 minutes: Closing by Drew
Adams, Barnes & Noble Community
Relations Manager

The program is FREE and open to
the public. You’re invited to just
show up. Parents, bring college
kids you know who may want an
internship! College students, come
for the same purpose! High school
kids are also welcome. SIGN UP
requested, so we can best plan space.

RSVP limit:
Only 150 members (including guests) can RSVP ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’ for this event.
Please go to the Meetup page to sign up.

Barnes & Noble – Fashion Island
401 Newport Center Drive Suite A215
Newport Beach , CA 92660
(949) 718-0109

Hope to see you there! : )

(California should be the world’s leader in electric cars, a technology still worthy of investment. And we still can be, see today’s SF Chron for a story about Tesla motors, a Bay Area electric car company. – promoted by SFBrianCL)