San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

[sutro]

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/12...cycling-center
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/12...cycling-center

There has been a lot of talk about the “green economy” and “green jobs” recently. Solar power installers and alternative fuel vehicle builders are certainly green workers. But not recycling center workers, according to the out-going Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom.

The Lieutenant Governor-elect of California, who ran his campaign on a platform touting the benefits of the green economy, evicted the 36 year old Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council Recycling (HANC) Center and Native Plant Nursery on December 3rd. HANC employs ten full and part time workers who earn a living wage and free health care at no tax payer expense.

The highly controversial plan is a convoluted one as well. Newsom plans to replace the HANC Recycling Center and Native Plant Nursery, which costs tax payers nothing, with a taxpayer funded $250,000 community garden. The project threatens an existing community garden, the Garden For The Environment (GFE), located nearby, by duplicating its mission and competing for funds. The GFE is fiscally sponsored and partially funded by HANC.

The City’s community gardeners are represented by the San Francisco Urban Agricultural Alliance (SFUAA). The SFUAA has strongly opposed the plan because the site is poorly suited for vegetable gardening, there is much greater need for this project in other, underserved neighborhoods and HANC already has a nursery on site and supports other garden projects around town with its surpluses.

This sounds like a good program, right? Not according to lame duck Newsom. He thinks curbside recycling pickup has replaced the need for recycling centers totally ignoring the California law that requires recycling centers to be conveniently located.

The Lieutenant Governor-elect needs to brush up on Assembly Bill 2020, the California Recycling and Litter Reduction Act. His ignorance of AB 2020 is hardly a surprise considering his statement, “ I don’t even know what the Lieutenant Governor does”, just weeks prior to launching his candidacy for that office.

Newsom’s other notion is that by eliminating HANC he will eliminate homeless camping in nearby Golden Gate Park. By his own numbers this is about 40 people. Yet HANC serves thousands and is open to all. His deputy mayor actually called for a kind of cordon sanitare around the Park where there would be no recycling centers at all, just to combat the homeless. A kind of scorched earth policy aimed at the poor.

This is a gigantic obscenity that must not stand!

[sutro]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

Video Here : http://mygarbage.org/blog.html

[zoog]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

...His ignorance of AB 2020 is hardly a surprise considering his statement, “ I don’t even know what the Lieutenant Governor does”, just weeks prior to launching his candidacy for that office. ...

The two opinion pieces linked conclude it's class warfare; he doesn't want homeless people hanging around in Haight Ashbury.

[Starving Steve]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

The two opinion pieces linked conclude it's class warfare; he doesn't want homeless people hanging around in Haight Ashbury.

I do not live in San Francisco, but I am struck by the use of the term, "class warfare". The year is not 1917, nor is SF: Moscow nor St. Petersburg.

The problem with SF is that rents are tooooooooo darn high, exactly the same problem as in Vancouver and Victoria....... And why is that?

The eco-frauds--- and they are frauds--- have preserved "native plants", "agricultural land", "green space", not to mention the infamous, "SF County field-mouse". And this preservation effort has driven-up land prices which means that rents on land have been driven-up as well.

Here in BC, we have the preservation of Fraser Valley agricultural land. We have the preservation of salmon-habitat.... It's the same game as down in California. (I remember my ten weeks of fighting with the Capitol Regional District of Victoria in order to get a building permit for my garage, and my property was 700 feet above sea-level---- all in the name of "salmon-habitat preservation" in a ditch that never had salmon, nor any fish of any type whatsoever.)

I don't want "green" anything. I don't want "eco-anything". I don't want "climate-crisis anything". I don't want to read about "class-warfare anything".

I am not grey-'n-grumpy; rather, I am fed-up. How much bull-sh*t can an old man take?

What is "the climate crisis"? Again, this is newspeak or eco-babble. No such climate crisis exists, and how many times do we have to prove this? The sea-level is not washing into Market Street in downtown SF. The official NOAA climate stations at San Francisco Airport and also at San Jose Airport, also at Moffett Field in Mountain View, also at Monterey, California, Oakland Airport, UC Berkeley, wherever show no change in the long-term climate, whatsoever.

How many times do I have to get upset?............... And these frauds got the jobs while I was passed-over to starve!

Do you care to view the trend this year down in California? www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr/

Pick other climate stations at airports throughout the U.S. or the world.

The bottomline is that the trend always reverts back to the long-term mean. But NOAA has nice graphic displays of the climate trend, day-by-day. So let the displays on NOAA's website present the story, and the story is that over the 20th and early 21st Century, there has not been much change in the climate---- maybe some warming of about 1-degree F over about 100 years.

One can talk about Hansen's models or Al Gore's "hockey-stick", but the Earth is not warming. That is why the sea-level is little-changed. Downtown San Francisco remains high and dry.

Have BBC World Television call me if they want a good debate. They have my e-mails. They know me.

[thunderdownunder]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

Steve from one old man to another.
While I am with you on most things stated above. This from NOAA is a worry.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Now my conclusion is that short term rise and falls in red happen because of the 4 seasons. Co2 rises when the trees hibernate and falls when they re awake. Really long term measurements from Ice cores clearly shows a rising pattern starting with Industrialisation. If you correlate the destruction of Natures most efficient converter of CO2 to O2 with the C being captured in the structure it become obvious that a reduction in World forests gives rise to Co2 from not only Burning but outright available acreage . (source - World Bank.org -Deforestation at five percent a decade is steadily depleting a valuable resource base for millions of people who depend on forests for survival. It also contributes to about 20 percent of annual global CO2 emissions and seriously threatens biodiversity.)

Lets cut the crap about Carbon Tax and wake up - When you cut down a Thousand acres of trees it is like one small lung alveoli being removed. Do it from long enough and you will have trouble breathing. Burn the Tree and its like smoking. Coal is just compressed Carbon storage and when burnt releases the suns stored energy. Its Nature, our Planets intelligent design and we have not the brains to see. Its time for Generation 4 pebble reactors every where, Its time for a moratorium on destruction of Forests, its time to stop trying to Make money out of Nature by having trustworthy Banks run a Carbon racket, its time to finally say it.....
Its a population problem stupid - All of it boils down to....... "In the closed biosphere of Earth what is the maximum population that can be sustained so that Humans can bring themselves back from the brink of self destruction and turn from being parasitic to symbiotic" The answer for failure is written in the past and the outright number was achieved in 1972.
Further reading I found useful after I wrote this was here (I don't vouch for its accuracy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

"Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find money cannot be eaten."

[sutro]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

The fix was in from the beginning.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...sco&id=7822486

[flintlock]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

Local politicians. The scum of the scum.

[sutro]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

Video Here
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...ates-cry-foul/
http://www.ktvu.com/video/26021404/index.html

[Starving Steve]

Re: San Francisco's Green Mayor Evicts Recycling Center!

I have never disputed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is increasing, but the Earth's atmosphere has had higher CO2 concentrations in its atmosphere in the past. Nevertheless, any change in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is a concern. I would concede that.

There is no dispute that CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I would not dispute that.

Here is where I would dispute the position taken by those who argue that CO2 is the cause of global warming:

1.) CO2 is a natural part of the Earth's atmosphere, and plants need CO2 to exist;
2.) There is de-forestation of some parts of the planet, but forests have re-appeared in other parts of the planet. For example, urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Jose are now forested. Also some burned-over areas such as Carlton County in Minnesota and Chisago County in Minnesota have completely re-generated their old-growth timber.
3.) CO2 is released by volcanic activity, and in massive quantity;
4.) Water-vapour in the atmosphere is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2;
5.) The Earth is warming by 1degree F (0.6degrees C) per century, and the cause of that warming is more likely the buildings around climate stations, and not CO2. The Sun also has a variable solar-output, and the solar-output has trended slightly higher over the last 100 years or so.
6.) World sea-level is rising but only by at most 7 inches per century;
7.) The Earth has been warming ever since the Ice Age ended ten-thousand years ago;
8.) The evidence sited by the AGW bunch for global-warming is bogus because ice sheets calve at their edges and grow in their centres (reference to the publications by Dr. Mario Giovinetto);
9.) Hansen's models at NOAA predicting global warming are bogus; their forecasts have not been confirmed by hard data collected at the world's climate stations, and the model forecasts have been much too high relative to observed temperatures at the world's climate stations;
10.) The actual faking of the data to calibrate the climate models has been shown and published in The London Evening Telegraph, ( reference to Delingpole's revelations: "Climategate, the Final Nail in the Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming").