LETTER FROM SACRAMENTO: Watch Out for this Ballot Measure Petition

Subject: LETTER FROM SACRAMENTO: Watch Out for this Ballot Measure Petition

-->

	Donate | Send to a Friend | View in Browser
	I suspect you heard some of the same well-meaning warnings as a child that I did: Don’t talk to strangers. Don’t run with scissors. Don’t sign ballot measure petitions.  What? You didn’t hear that last one?  Well, I’m here to share it with you now because there’s a new ballot measure petition circulating that you should not sign.  It’s designed to overturn one of the boldest environmental bills the California legislature has passed in a long time.  That legislation, Senate Bill 270, was signed into law in September and establishes the first statewide ban on distribution by grocery stores of the ubiquitous plastic grocery bag. The ban phases in over a couple of years and includes some special funding to make sure a single-use plastic bag manufacturing company in Southern California is able to transition to making other products. The petition to place a referendum on the 2016 ballot to overturn the new law is pushed by the American Progressive Bag Alliance, a group that’s part of the plastics industry trade association called SPI. Both groups are based in Washington, DC. Both groups represent plastic bag  manufacturers based outside of California who are apparently offended by Californians’ desire to live in a place that’s not polluted with plastic bags. Are Californians being too harsh when we decide to stop bag pollution? Well, as I write this at my desk in a second-floor office in downtown Sacramento, I can look out my window and see a plastic grocery bag hanging from the high branches of an old oak tree. Right now I feel rightly hostile toward plastic bags. Plastic grocery bags haven’t always been the norm. They started becoming a regular part of the grocery shopping experience in the 1980s, when major grocery store chains started shifting from paper bags to plastic. Since then, they have also grown as a consumer of oil (in their manufacture) and a source of non-biodegradable ocean pollution and everyday street litter (in their end use). Our friends at Californians Against Waste note that plastic bags create between $37 million and $107 million in litter cleanup costs in California’s cities and counties. And that’s just one of the easier costs to count. Plastic grocery bags have also been found trashing nearly every corner of the globe, and have been found in the stomachs of a variety of dead wildlife. Those costs are harder to put into dollar figures. The senate bill establishing the plastic bag ban wasn’t created on a whim. It was the result of many years of work and had been preceded by other ban bills that failed. The bill had also been preceded by adoption of local plastic bag bans in more than 100 California cities. And, significantly, the bill was supported by a diverse coalition that included the California Grocers Association and the California Retailers Association. So now we have a situation that we’ve seen before in California. State lawmakers create policies that protect the environment and have broad support. Then out-of-state special interests move in and try to stop the policies from taking hold. The plastics makers who want to kill the ban bill have just over two months left to collect more than 500,000 signatures to put the referendum to overturn the bag ban on the ballot in 2016. They will be hiring signature gatherers who are paid per signature to assertively obtain your John Hancock. If you are approached by anyone in the next couple of months asking that you sign a petition to put a bag measure on the ballot, just say no. There are times when well-meaning warnings are worthwhile. This is one of them. Pass it on. Sincerely, Kathryn Phillips Director Sierra Club California is the Sacramento-based legislative and regulatory advocacy arm of the 13 California chapters of the Sierra Club.

Chico State Herbarium Fall Photo Context

Celebrate Californiaʼs Flora!

4 th Annual Friends of the Chico State Herbarium

Fall Photo Contest

1^st prize --‐ $100 or free FOH workshop

2^nd prize --‐$50 and FOH t--‐shirt

3^rd prize --‐ $25 and FOH t--‐shirt

 
Specifications: The photographs must be of California native plants. There is a $10 fee for submission. This fee allows two entries per participant. All entries must be received by Oct. 16th, 2014. Submit photos in either 8” x 10” or 8” x 12” format as both a hardcopy and as a digital file. Include a note listing the title or subject, your name and contact information. Submit prints in person to the Gateway Science Museum ticket office OR by mail to: 2014 Plant Photo Contest, Chico State Herbarium, CSU Chico, Chico CA 95929-0515. Submit the digital file and any

questions to John at friendsoftheherbarium@gmail.com. Photos will be on display at the Annual Meeting of Friends of the Herbarium (FOH) on Nov. 8, 2014.. Photos will not be returned. For more information on the, photo contest or FOH and upcoming workshops visit http://www.csuchico.edu/biol/Herb/Friends.html

Butte County’s Ground and Surface Water Forum

 

Chico, May 12, 2014 – Butte County, the City of Chico, and AquAlliance will host a forum to provide the public with an update on state local ground water monitoring, surface water supplies, and the challenges and opportunities to sustain our water resources. The main feature of the program will be the current ground water conditions compiled from over 100 wells monitored on a quarterly basis. Speakers will provide some historical, political, and policy perspectives from the vantage point of local government, agricultural surface water districts, ground water dependent farmers, and non-governmental organizations.

Speakers include:

 Paul Gosselin, Director of the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation

 Christina Buck, PhD., Water Resource Scientist for Butte County

 Bryce Lundberg, Lundberg Family Farms and Thad Bettner, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District

 Barbara Vlamis, AquAlliance

 Ed McLaughlin, former Butte County Supervisor and Durham farmer

“With the continuing dry conditions in 2014, we want our residents to have the most current information on

the status of Butte County ground and surface water and how our communities, economy, and the

environment may be impacted,” stated Butte County Supervisor Maureen Kirk.

What: Butte County Ground Water Forum

When: Thursday, May 22, 2014 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Where: Chico City Council Chambers, 411 Main Street in Chico

Who: Butte County, City of Chico, AquAlliance

CONTACT INFORMATION

AquAlliance

Barbara Vlamis, Executive Director

(530) 895-9420

info@aqualliance.net

Butte County Department of Water and

Resource Conservation

Paul Gosselin, Director

(530) 538-4343

BCWater@buttecounty.net

###

Background

Information about Butte County’s Ground Water Monitoring can be found at:

http://www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation/GroundwaterLevels.aspx

Data for all Butte County monitored wells are available online from the state at:

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/.

Climate Adaptation

Wall Street Journal  Mar 19, 2014
ENVIRONMENT

Fighting Climate Change, and Living With It Too

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/19/fighting-climate-change-and-living-with-it-too/

By AMY HARDER

The Obama administration is launching a new effort to highlight a climate change policy that usually doesn't get much attention: adaptation.

The administration Wednesday is unveiling a new website, climate.data.gov, and a series of other related initiatives, to coincide with an event the White House is hosting to highlight efforts to help the country become more prepared for and resilient toward climate change.

Climate adaptation-the notion that we need to find ways to adjust to climate changes-is another side to climate policy. It gets less attention than the more controversial mitigation side, finding ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The adaptation approach is gaining ground, especially in light of extreme-weather events.

But the issue can be tricky. While advocates and experts in the climate community say adaptation and mitigation measures are complementary and work in tandem, the two approaches can be seen as competing for precious resources and attention, so those who want both are careful not to pit them against one another.

In some cases adaptation policies are not linked to climate change. For example, in legislation to maintain the nation's waterways, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), inserted a title on extreme weather, but she was careful to avoid using the words "climate change." That bill easily passed the Senate, but it must still be reconciled with a House-passed measure.

In the event Wednesday, senior administration officials say they are seeking to implement policies in tandem that both help the country adapt to climate change and also mitigate it by cutting carbon emissions. Examples of climate adaptation measures include stricter building code requirements so that infrastructure can stand up to more extreme weather, and the construction of structures that can withstand sea-level rise and separate buildings from potential flooding.

"While no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, we know that our changing climate is making many kinds of extreme events more frequent and more severe," write John Podesta and John Holdren, two senior advisers to President Barack Obama, in a blog post on the White House website. "Rising seas threaten our coastlines. Dry regions are at higher risk of destructive wildfires. Heat waves impact health and agriculture. Heavier downpours can lead to damaging floods." Mr. Podesta is counselor to Mr. Obama and Mr. Holdren is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology. They say that in 2012 alone, extreme-weather events caused more than $110 billion in damages and claimed more than 300 lives.

The website, which will initially focus on coastal flooding and sea-level rise, will include data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, Defense Department and other federal agencies. The administration has also secured commitments from private companies, including Google Inc. and Intel Corp.INTC +1.35%, on new corporate initiatives aimed at providing more and better data related to preparing for climate change.

Don't Frack California rally in Sacramento March 15

Join thousands of Californians in Sacramento on March 15
for the largest mobilization against fracking the Golden State has ever seen!  http://motherlode.sierraclub.org/yahi/dontfrackca.pdf


Charter Bus Location: Butte College Chico Center, 2320 Forest Ave, Chico, next to Lowe' parking lot.

Bus leaves at 10am, back at 630pm. Tickets $20/ limited free seats

Contact Dave Garcia, 530-218-5133, rangerdave@mynvw.com

Help Us Keep Your Local Roadways Clean

 

The Butte County Resource Conservation District (BCRCD) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have an upcoming volunteer work day on Thursday, February 13th, 2014 (depending on the weather) for our Adopt-A-Highway program.

See Press Release

 

For more information please feel free to contact Sam Rossi at...

 

 

Sam Rossi, Conservation Associate
Butte County Resource Conservation District &
Sierra Nevada AmeriCorps Partnership
150 Chuck Yeager Way Suite A
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 534-0112 x 125
www.buttecountyrcd.org

Keystone XL: Set to Reject

---

From: "Michael Brune, Sierra Club"

February 4, 2014 All across America, people are gathering to draw attention to the threat that the Keystone XL pipeline poses to clean air, clean water, public health, and the stability of our climate. Last night alone, thousands attended nearly 300 vigils in 49 states. This outpouring of hope and frustration came together in just a few days, in response to the release of a deeply flawed report by the State Department that underestimates the consequences of building this pipeline across the heart of the United States. People are hopeful because the decision to reject the Keystone pipeline is in the hands of President Obama, who has stated his firm commitment to fight climate disruption. He will be advised by Secretary of State John Kerry, a long-standing champion in the effort to solve the climate crisis that is already upon us, already stirring extreme weather like Superstorm Sandy, the polar vortex, droughts, and wildfires. These leaders know that Americans have embraced clean energy and have no interest in retreating to dependence on the dirty fossil fuels of centuries past. So I'm cautiously confident that the president and secretary of state will do the right thing and stop this pipeline in its tracks. People are frustrated, however, because the report released last Friday was largely written by a contractor that stands to profit if the pipeline is built. Not surprisingly, it gives the pipeline a passing grade, while virtually every credible expert has already given the project a big fat "Fail." Biased as it is, though, the report sets the stage for President Obama to reject this dirty, dangerous manifestation of Big Oil's greed, by abandoning the contention in earlier drafts that KXL would have no significant impact on climate. Instead, it concludes that the pipeline would contribute the equivalent of an additional 6 million cars on the road to annual greenhouse gas emissions. The president is on record that he will not allow Keystone XL to be built if it would "significantly exacerbate" carbon pollution. The pollution from six million cars is anything but insignificant. And a more credible independent analysis estimates that carbon pollution from the pipeline would be equivalent to more than 37 million gas-guzzling cars -- or 51 coal-fired power plants. How does that make sense at a moment when we are making progress against climate disruption by retiring dirty coal plants and building more and more wind turbines and solar panels to create the energy that is already powering Teslas, Leafs, and Smart cars? There are plenty of reasons to reject Keystone. Here are a few reasons to reject last week's report: The report was too narrow in scope.  Federal law requires government agencies to consider the cumulative impact of proposed federal actions such as permits for pipelines that cross international boundaries. Last week, the Sierra Club and its coalition partners alerted the State Department that it had failed to consider the climate impacts of Keystone XL combined with other tar sands pipeline decisions, including the proposed Alberta Clipper pipeline expansion. The report has a serious conflict of interest. ERM -- a member organization of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's lobbying group -- was handpicked for the job by TransCanada, the company seeking to build the KXL pipeline. The State Department's Inspector General is currently investigating this contract for mismanagement and bias. The contention that the pollution is inevitable is false: The review assumes that tar sands expansion will happen with or without Keystone XL. But that's not what industry experts, financial analysts, and Canadian government officials are saying. And if you follow the money, it's clear that the delay already caused by the campaign opposing Keystone XL has led to both reduced foreign investment in the tar sands and reduced projections of tar sands crude production. In short, this pipeline is the linchpin for tar sands development. The tar sands cannot economically or safely be carried by rail: The review also assumes that, without a pipeline, tar sands crude would be shipped by rail. But moving tar sands by rail is both difficult and expensive, and will become even more so once new federal safety requirements come into effect. Since last July, when an oil train disaster killed 47 in Quebec, we've seen oil train accidents in Edmonton (Oct.), Alabama (Nov.), North Dakota (Dec), and New Brunswick and Pennsylvania (Jan). Just last Friday, while all eyes were on the rollout of the State Department's report, yet another crude-oil rail train derailed and spilled in Mississippi. The next step in the Keystone XL decision is for Secretary Kerry to make a recommendation to the president about whether the pipeline is in our "national interest." We welcome Secretary Kerry to the fray. Kerry said in October that "energy policy is the solution to global climate change." He realizes that  climate-driven extreme weather is making life perilous in all 50 states, weakening our economy, and threatening our national security. If we invest in tar sands pipelines, we can expect only poisoned air and water in return. Investing in clean energy, on the other hand, creates jobs, lowers energy costs, builds energy security, and reduces carbon pollution. It's time to go "all in" on clean energy. Ultimately, though, this is President Obama's decision. Although he has struggled with the paradox of reducing carbon pollution while promoting a dirty "all of the above" energy policy, the president already has more than enough evidence to reject this pipeline based solely on its effect on climate disruption. But even though this debate has centered on climate, that is only part of what's at stake. When considering the "national interest," the president will also need to consider how this pipeline would affect the health and safety of American families, farmers and ranchers along the pipeline route, and fence-line refinery communities. Finally, after weighing all the facts, the president must reject Keystone XL and send the world a clear message: Our nation is committed to clean energy and climate solutions.   This email was sent to g-marvin@comcast.net Click here to add yourself to Michael Brune's email list. Sierra Club | 85 2nd St San Francisco, CA 94105 | membership.services@sierraclub.org Unsubscribe | Update My Profile | Manage My Email Preferences View as a Webpage | Tell a Friend About this Email