"Green Chemistry Initiative" Should Yield Chemical Safeguards

Today Cal-EPA issued its Green Chemistry Report.
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Chemistry Initiative is a serious effort to address the hazards posed by toxic chemicals. Most Californians would be surprised to find out that our state government has no authority to assure that the goods sold at our local stores are safe for our families. The Green Chemistry Initiative has the potential to fix this problem – but only if it survives intense lobbying by the chemical industry.

Cal-EPA has gone all out to make the process of reforming chemical policy inclusive and interactive. Now that today’s report has laid out the options, the administration must begin the hard work of deciding which alternatives to adopt and which ones to propose in legislation.

The Green Chemistry process should result in major new statutory authority for the state’s experts to protect us from toxins that are currently allowed to contaminate our bodies and our environment. Voluntary measures and recognition of best practices have their place, but the only way to ensure meaningful reductions in human and environmental exposures to harmful chemicals is through enforceable safeguards. Collecting the most comprehensive and current data available is one essential building block of those safeguards.

The Legislature should give DTSC the authority to, if warranted by scientific evidence from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, ban or restrict the usage of particular chemicals in consumer products. The process could be patterned on the Air Resources Board’s program that has successfully reduced emissions from consumer products.

Cal-EPA’s scientific experts will need to set priorities in addressing hazardous substances, and should start by protecting the most vulnerable people, like children. Our government must ensure that products many infants are exposed to -- from baby bottles to toys to baby food containers -- will be safe for the next generation.

Furthermore, manufacturers of products containing hazardous materials should be held responsible for the safe disposition of those products at the end of their useful lives. The Integrated Waste Management Board should work with the Legislature to require extended producer responsibility for such products, and should exercise that authority by prioritizing consumer products that, when discarded, become hazardous wastes (like mercury-containing thermostats).

Expert Details Viable Ways to Cut Carbon Emissions

Cutting carbon emissions both locally and globally is an issue of the utmost importance for Sierra Club California, and we draw valuable information from experts with the knowledge necessary to make a carbon-free economy a reality. Daniel M. Kammen, Ph.D./distinguished Professor/Chair in Energy, is one such person who knows what it takes to research and implement such progress. Speaking recently at the California Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Kammen highlighted some important emerging technologies he sees as vital to getting California, the United States, and the rest of the world to kick the fossil fuel habit.

Kammen sees carbon sequestering biofuels, super-efficient solar/wind technologies, and sustainable re-development as the most promising ways towards a low-cost, low-carbon roadmap for California to meet near and long-term sustainability targets. Important to Professor Kammen's seminar was the implementation of green technologies on a receptive economy. Citing over a dozen separate studies and findings, Dr. Kammen concluded that his favorite green improvements would create 3 to 5 times more jobs per dollar invested than would be created with a traditional fossil-fueled economy. Also, what Kammen advocates is not a far-flung technology which has yet to be created; he only talked about what exists now as a reality. Everything Professor Kammen mentioned could be implemented tomorrow if only the funding and investments existed. But, not to be disillusioned, Kammen expressed much optimism as to the viability of a low-carbon economy and energy infrastructure that is slowly coming to fruition.

Click here to see the archived web-cast of Daniel Kammen's seminar, then follow the links to the video/audio of the January 29th Chairman's Seminar at Cal/EPA Headquarters, Byron Sher Auditorium, 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM.

Assembly Runs out of Gas on Clean Car Bill

The Assembly left town yesterday after deciding on the fate of its remaining bills that had not cleared the house last year. The Assembly went out with a whimper, failing to pass AB 493, Ira Ruskin's innovative proposal to give consumers discounts on cleaner vehicles, paid for by surcharges on the more polluting cars and trucks. With no Republican support at all, and with too many Democratic lawmakers unwilling to cast a vote against the powerful auto dealer lobby, the bill lacked the necessary votes, and was never even brought up on the floor.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080130/news_1n30gas.html

Where have all the salmon gone...

It appears that the relatively healthy stocks of Central Valley fall run chinook are in serious trouble. Today's Sac Bee has the story:

The Sacramento River's fall chinook salmon population is headed for a collapse, according to new federal data, threatening the upcoming commercial and recreational fishing season on one of the country's most important runs.

The fall chinook run in the Central Valley has long been touted as a conservation success story. As many other species declined, fall salmon spawning in the Sacramento River and its tributaries held reliably above 200,000 fish for 15 years.

But in fall 2007, the number of spawners suddenly fell to just 90,414 fish, the second-lowest total since 1973. That includes wild and hatchery-raised fish.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) found two areas of particularly bad news. First, the return of mature Sacramento river chinook failed to meet conservation targets for the first time in 15 years. Second, the returns of younger "jack" salmon (which return to spawn when they are two years old rather then the normal three) were at a record low 2,000 fish, compared to a long-term average of 40,000. This is an ominous indicator for next year's run.

The collapse of these previously solid stocks have PFMC fisheries experts very worried:

Last week scientists questioned whether returns in 2008 could meet the conservation objective even without any commercial or recreational salmon fishing where these fish are found. If returns do not meet the conservation objective, an emergency rule from National Marine Fisheries Service may be required to allow any fisheries.

The reasons for the decline are not entirely clear - both wild salmon and hatchery fish appear to be affected, and the cause is likely related to ocean conditions.

The economic implications for fishermen (and those who love to eat wild salmon) are dire. Sacramento chinook have historically been the "workhorse" salmon run, providing much of the commercial catch. If the population has crashed as severely as it appears, the fishing season next year will be substantially restricted.

The PFMS will meet in Sacramento on March 8-14 to discuss management options, followed by public comment and hearings up the coast. It certainly appears that it will be a painful decision making process.

More information is available at the Pacific Fisheries Management Council web site, including an informative press release.

Clean Car Bill Up for Assembly Vote Next Week

With the State Assembly poised to vote next week on the Clean Car Discount, AB 493, authored by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin, the Los Angeles Times has weighed in with strong support in an excellent editorial, "'Feebates' for new cars."

Sierra Club California, Surfrider State Park Foundation and others, Urge Protection of San Onofre State Beach from the Foothill South-Toll Road

Sacramento, CA – On January 22, 2008, a coalition including environmental groups, campers and surfers spoke out against Governor Schwarzenegger’s recent decision to support a six-lane, 16-mile toll road extension through San Onofre State Beach in Northern San Diego County. Scattered on the capitol lawn were 161 little red tents representing campsites that would likely be abandoned due to the harm the toll road would have on the San Mateo Campground.

“Approval of the Foothill-South Toll Road through San Onofre State Beach would set a dangerous precedent and put all our parks at greater risk,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, President of the California State Parks Foundation. “As California becomes more and more crowded, we are at a turning point. It is our generation that will decide whether state parks are merely warehouses for future development projects or if the lands we cherish will be protected for future generations to enjoy.”

“Because we live in San Bernardino, far from the coast, being able to camp at such a lovely campground near the beach is very important to us,” added Deborah Fry, a teacher whose family camps at the San Mateo Campground several times a year. “Camping together brings my family closer and creates memories that will last a lifetime.”

The protection of San Onofre State Beach from the Foothill South Toll Road is not just an issue of local concern but one of statewide significance as well. If they can put a road through San Onofre, it will set a dangerous precedent and put all of our parks at greater risk. As California becomes more and more crowded we are at a turning point. “Will our parks and natural spaces remain open protected for future generations to enjoy or will they be seen as just warehouses, set aside for future development?” said Jim Metropulos, Legislative Representative for Sierra Club California “Parks should not be looked at as the path of least resistence for developers proposing bad projects."

Early next month, the California Coastal Commission will decide if the Foothill South-Toll Road is compliant with California’s Coastal Act. Last year, the Coastal Commission staff released a 236-page report stating the road violates the Coastal Act in substantive and unmitigable ways. The Coastal Commission will make a decision regarding the toll road extension when they meet on February 6^th in Oceanside.

The proposed Foothill South-Toll Road has long been a source of contention between environmentalists, campers and local citizens and toll road proponents. Environmentalists assert that the road will not significantly reduce the county’s traffic problems and construction of a road through a state park will set a dangerous precedent. The proposed extension would connect the current portions of the Foothill South Toll Road to the I-5 freeway at the Orange County/San Diego border cutting through San Onofre State Beach, the San Mateo Campground and the San Mateo Watershed causing the abandonment of nearly 60% of the park.

Not only would the road ruin San Mateo Campground, but Surfrider Foundation is also concerned the toll road will pollute the San Mateo Creek and alter the natural flow of sediment and cobbles that help form the waves at Trestles. “Why risk ruining a pristine watershed, impeccable water quality, and a perfect wave for a toll road?" asks Stefanie Sekich, Save Trestles Campaign Coordinator for Surfrider Foundation.

From the California Progressive Report: "Who Wants to Camp Under a Toll Road? A Bad Idea for California’s Parks"

From Capitol Weekly: "Coalition rises to protect San Onofre State Beach"

Schwarzenegger Proposes to Close 48 State Parks & Cut Lifeguards at 14 State Beaches

Last week Governor Schwarzenegger proposed cutting $13.3 million from the Department of Parks and Recreation general fund budget in 2008-09, in attempt to close the huge $14 billion state deficit. This reduction would mean the closure of 48 state parks out of 278 existing parks and reduce the number of lifeguards at 14 state beaches in Orange, San Diego and Santa Cruz Counties. The department would also eliminate 136 permanent employees that work in the state park system, including park rangers, maintenance workers, scientists and tour guides.

Sierra Club California strongly opposes any effort to close our state parks. These cuts would be devastating to the millions of Californians who rely on their state parks for recreation, educational opportunities and quiet enjoyment of nature.

Shutting down state parks is out of touch with the priorities of Californians. The 48 parks slated for closure represent some of the most significant cultural, historic, and natural resources in the state. State parks slated for closure include Henry Coe near Morgan Hill, Portola Redwoods in San Mateo County, Sutter’s Fort Historic Park in Sacramento, Del Norte Redwoods near the Oregon Border, Pio Pico in Whittier, and Great Valley Grasslands in Merced.

The 14 state beaches that are slated to have lifeguards removed from their shores are some of the most popular state beaches in California. Proposing that California’s state beaches can go through the summer without adequate lifeguard staffing is a dangerous proposal that threatens the health and safety of Californians. Lifeguards would be reduced at Silver Strand State Beach in San Diego, San Clemente State Beach in Orange County, Sunset State Beach south of Santa Cruz and other locations.

Click here for a list of proposed park closures and lifeguard reductions.

We believe that the Governor’s proposal is the wrong way to go about balancing the state’s budget. The total reductions from the state parks budget would only eliminate one-tenth of one percent of the state deficit.

Sierra Club California is contacting legislators and working with them to oppose the closure of any state parks during the budget process. Soon, we will be asking you to contact your legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger to tell them to keep all of California’s state parks open for everyone.

Jim Metropulos
Sierra Club California