NonprofitWatch’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  But she did so much for global warming

  The above assessment seems to be utterly at odds with the perspective from the leader of NRDC, aka "earth's best best defense".  It's surprising that someone with the above record would be so good on global warming.

  In a review of Obama's environmental appointments, the esteemed Frances Beinecke notes that

  
  Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator: As a proven leader on energy and climate issues, Jackson is a great choice for the Obama EPA. Many of my NRDC colleagues found her to be a thoughtful and pragmatic leader when they worked closely with her to establish the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the first mandatory, market-based effort to reduce carbon emission from power plants in 10 Northeastern states.

  But Jackson didn't stop there. As commissioner of NJ EPA, she helped New Jersey adopt economy-wide limits on global warming pollution, making it second only to California in its efforts to address climate change. She pushed the governor to support an economic stimulus plan that included about $500 million for energy efficiency investments. She also shaped the state's Energy Master Plan, which requires New Jersey to cut energy use by 20 percent by 2020 and meet 30 percent of demand through renewables by 2020.
  

  
  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/the_environme ...

  bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

  On Critics say EPA pick failed to clean up N.J.'s toxic sites posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re RFK Jr.

  Hey Ed, about caving "on privatization of the Commons and to centralized power", have you not noted the criticism against RFK Jr. and his brother Joe regarding their involvement with efforts to do this very thing in the Western deserts.  

  Note to Earth, yes he's the real deal, the real hypocritical deal.

  I find it pathetic that he as an environmentalist and his sister the human rights activist had no problem with Chevron underwriting their family's charity honoring their Dad and that they remained silent while the Clinton administration was caving in to Chevron and  big oil in regards to human rights issues in Nigeria, Angola and elsewhere.

  There's more to be said, but deserves an essay.  

  bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

  On Obama considers RFK Jr. for EPA posted 1 year ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Enviros Supporting H; None Opposing It Seems

  I think the people deeply involved in Prop H should be commenting instead of I,
  but they are probably out trying to make last minute appeals to voters.

  Note the below environmentalists and enviro groups supporting Prop H
  that I excerpted from the endorsement page.
  http://www.sfcleanenergy.com/endorsements/  
  At the site you'll find a video of Bill McKibben's endorsement.
  Apologies if I left out anyone that should have been included as enviro.

  
  Van Jones, founder and President, Green for All
  Bill McKibben, environmental author; founder, Step It Up campaign
  Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club
  Michael Bornstein, Senior Director, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
  Rick Galbreath, Member, Sierra Club Bay Area Chapter Executive Committee

  Sierra Club
  Greenpeace
  San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
  San Francisco Tomorrow
  Green Guerrillas Against Greenwash
  Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
  Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
  Literacy for Environmental Justice
  Global Exchange
  Food & Water Watch
  Urban Alliance for Sustainability
  

  H is also supported by the San Francisco Democratic Party,
  San Francisco Green Party, ACORN, SEIU, League of Young/Pissed Off Voters,
  Gray Panthers and many others.  And the Reverend Billy and band Cake support H.

  Mayor Newsom's opposition is in part interpreted as resulting from his longstanding opposition
  to public power I believe, the fact that his former campaign manager to whom he supposedly remains close is working for the opposition, and his interest in running for governor for which he'd like to have the support and money of private  utilities and other business interests.

  Looking at the No on H aka Stop the Blank Check's website, one finds no environmental groups
  or individuals identified as environmentalists.
  http://www.stoptheblankcheck.com/oppose

  The CEOs of SolarCity and and BrightSource ( a "utility-scale" solar plant developer) are listed and quoted (click on their names to see) as opposing Prop H, but considering that both companies have business deals with PG&E, would you expect them to have the independence to do otherwise.

  In the No On H videos which are probably getting lots or air time considering the money spent to
  beat Prop H, one does see a noted "green" reverend who is involved with one of my favorite groups (i'm being facetious) and about whom I could share some critical thoughts, but I will be positive and polite and save these for another day.

  This is a very uplifting video supporting both H and Obama
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiB3zjLc7Ds ,
  and this one is incredibly provocative and pure genius -- generously uses a special
  four letter word -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZuwXSbb6WA&feature=re ...

  Here you find an editorial supporting H.
  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/ ...

  PS. There are certain major enviros with a strong San Francisco presence that seem to be quiet on Prop H, and one could suggest interesting reasons for this, but I'm being positive and polite.

  :)
  

  bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

  On Educate David on California's Prop H posted 1 year ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dave, wrong No On H website

  The correct website for the opposition to Prop H is http://www.stoptheblankcheck.com/ suggesting that if approved, Prop H would be quite costly to San Franciscans.

  There are so many propositions and they seem to keep their websites up as the case of your link to the 2005 opponents of Prop H in San Francisco which intended to ban sale and possession of firearms -- maybe an interesting mistake in that the supporters of Prop H are driven by a wish to shift us from dangerous fossil fuels and nuclear energy to safe renewable energy.

  As I understand, the proposition does not specifically call for the takeover of PG&E though that is how it seems to be commonly portrayed and could be an outcome of the measure.   Below the language from the Yes on H website which I think is insightful.

  
  "Yes on H"!  The San Francisco Clean Energy Act is a measure appearing on the November 4, 2008 ballot that amends the city and county charter to require the City to transition from fossil fuels to clean, non-nuclear, sustainable energy production at affordable rates.

  "Yes on H" directs the SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to establish one document laying out the long-term integrated resource plan for transmission, distribution and electricity resources.

  The plan will assess the most effective means of providing clean, sustainable, reliable, and reasonably priced electric services to residents, businesses and City departments.

  This Act {"Yes on H"} provides policy direction to achieve the City's existing goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 20% below 1990 levels (per the 2002 GHG resolution) and to procure 51% of the City's energy needs through renewable energy and conservation by 2017 (per the 2007 Community Choice Aggregation ordinance). Specifically, the Act directs the City to analyze, identify and pursue strategies that:
  

  By the way, Prop H in 2005 passed; considering that the planet faces climate-chaos and thinking about the massive recent failure of the free market system driven by the societal elites, I'd like to see Prop H approved this year as well to see how this grassroots-driven alternative to investor-oriented approaches works out. If well, maybe others would be inspired to copy it.

  bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

  On Educate David on California's Prop H posted 1 year ago 9 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Unfortunately . . .

  . . . at moment I don't have time to look closely at your post and ponder the matters at hand but in general I have appreciated much of your commentary that I've seen on Grist.

  However, I think your use of the word "debunking" is amusing for someone affiliated and I would presume paid by a group that has done ads in favor of ethanol; those ads seemed to have been heavily excoriated here on Grist.
  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/30/173511/136

  Did you ever comment on the issue?

  Moreover, your group is pretty politically connected, and I will look forward with interest to see the policies it supports and where it decides to take a stand on matters under discussion.

  But of course I should mention that I think myself somewhat biased in regards S&N on account of a comment I think I saw from them long ago along the lines that shutting down NRDC might be good. ( But I could be wrong in this; if someone's aware of the reference, please let me know.)

  bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

  On Breaking the technology breakthrough myth posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses