Small Failures: Sustainability for the Rest of Us

2009-05-08T09:50:00.000-07:00

It's official, folks: I've retired Small Failures for the time being. I just don't have the time these days to devote to an additional blog. But fear not: you can always peruse the archives using the main menu at the top of the page, and definitely check me out at the Roughstock Library, where I'm now blogging about many of the issues I used to cover here. Thanks for reading, for linking, and for generally being interested in this stuff!

Plans to Spray California Still In Place

2008-06-12T14:07:00.000-07:00

Despite the fact that over 30 cities and counties, the bulk of California's senators and representatives, the state Assembly, and over 28,000 citizens oppose the aerial spraying (according to the SF Chronicle), the state still intends to commence spraying beginning August 17...and to continue spraying indefinitely.

This comes from Governor Schwarzenegger:

"Thank you for your previous correspondence on the California Department of Food and Agriculture's (CDFA) Light Brown Apple Moth Project.

The light brown apple moth - if uncontrolled - poses a great threat to California's diverse range of agricultural and natural plant life, as well as native and endangered species. If it becomes established statewide, the moth would have a devastating impact on our state's environment and economy.

Throughout the treatment program, the public's safety is the primary concern. Any product used must meet rigorous standards for health and safety. However, to thoroughly ensure everyone's safety, the aerial spraying has been postponed while CDFA completes what's known as "six-pack" toxicology tests in addition to the normal extensive tests on the pheromone products. These tests thoroughly test toxicity for eye, inhalation, respiratory and other potential irritants.

I am confident that these additional tests will reassure Californians that we are taking the safest, most progressive approach to ridding our state of this very real threat to our agriculture, environment and economy. Again, thank you for contacting me and adding your voice to this important issue.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger"

As usual, the State's communications about their plans are extremely misleading, and ignore or misrepresent the facts. Let's break this down a little:

"The light brown apple moth - if uncontrolled - poses a great threat to California's diverse range of agricultural and natural plant life, as well as native and endangered species. If it becomes established statewide, the moth would have a devastating impact on our state's environment and economy."

Fact: No one actually knows what kind of threat the LBAM really poses.
So far, about 3,500 moths have been trapped. Unfortunately, the LBAM is very difficult to identify without actual dissection, and the CDFA numbers don't indicate if this 3,500 includes dissected moths, or just suspected LBAMs. Additionally, it's not clear what the CDFA considers and "infestation." They claim that counties like Alameda and Contra Costa are "infested," (PDF brochure) but their own concentration maps (PDF map) indicate that these counties have no more than 2-10 moths per square mile. Finally, etymological experts far and wide have agreed that eradicating the moth is close to impossible (they gave up trying in New Zealand, where the moth is now everywhere), and the pheremone they intend to use has not been proven to be effective in doing so.

"However, to thoroughly ensure everyone's safety, the aerial spraying has been postponed while CDFA completes what's known as "six-pack" toxicology tests in addition to the normal extensive tests on the pheromone products. These tests thoroughly test toxicity for eye, inhalation, respiratory and other potential irritants."

Fact: Health testing is being limited to short-term, "acute" effects.
Tests for irritants do little to ensure that the chemical spray to be used is safe in the long term. Given that exposure to the chemical will be multiple times per month, for most months of the year, for an indefinite number of years, there will be no way to know if such increased exposure is safe over time. Unless we postpone spraying to conduct long-term safety tests - which the State isn't doing - it's quite possible that chronic health issues could arise months and years after exposure. This concern is serious - the pheromone is delivered via microscopic "capsules" that, if small enough, can lodge themselves in the lungs and stay there, posing a serious health risk over time. The State claims these capsules are too big to pose a threat, but studies have shown that the previous spraying contained capsules that were small enough (read more info about the health reviews here).

Ultimately, the State's assertions about the moth, its treatment, and public safety are disingenuous at best and outright reckless at worst. And yet, plans to begin spraying beginning August 17 don't seem to be changing.

Upcoming Events to Stop the Spray

2008-05-08T11:14:00.000-07:00

Thurs, May 8 (tonight!): Town Hall Meeting

Time
7:00 pm
Location
San Francisco: Hall of Flowers/County Fair Bldg. in GG Park (9th & Lincoln)
Description
A panel of etymology experts and several SF Supervisors will discuss the issues and take public comments.
Additional Info
sfspraytownhall.org

Sat, May 10: Family March

Time
9:30 am: Gather at SW end of Corte Madera Town Center mall (Charles Schwab storefront)
10:00 am: March to Town Park soccer field for rally
Location
Corte Madera: gather at Town Center mall, rally at Town Park soccer field
Description
Moms, families and concerned community members rally against the spray. Organizers are requesting attendees bring signs and umbrellas in protest.
Additional Info
stopthespraymarin.org

Sun, May 14: Community Forum Meeting

Time
7:00-9:00 pm
Location
Berkeley: Cafe Leila, 1740 San Pablo Ave.
Description
Local panelists will discuss the health impacts of the spray and action steps.
Additional info
Google Calendar event

Sun, May 25: Draw the Line Benefit Concert

Time
5:00 pm
Location
Monterey: Golden State Theater, 417 Alvarado St.
Description
Silent auction and benefit concert featuring Rhythm and Rouge, Red Beans and Rice, and others.
Additional info
Golden Gate Theater

Sat, May 31: Huge Stop the Spray March

Time
9:00 am: Gathering and rally
12:00 pm: March across Golden Gate Bridge
Location
San Francisco: Rally at Golden Gate Park (exact location TBA), march across the Golden Gate Bridge
Description
Rally and march.
Additional info
TBA

Every Monday: CASS Outreach Meeting

Time
6:30-8:00 pm
Location
Santa Cruz: 200 Washington St.
Description
Outreach, alliance- and leadership-building with the California Alliance to Stop the Spray.
Additional info
cassonline.org

Moratorium on Statewide Spray Passed Unanimously: Long-Term Studies Remain to Be Seen

2008-04-30T09:14:00.000-07:00

The following article may be reprinted for informational purposes only with full author attribution and a link back to this site.

Members of the Senate passed a resolution introduced by Sen. Carole Migden (D-CA) on Monday, unanimously voting to halt all aerial spraying in California until the CDFA "can demonstrate that the pheromone compound it intends to use is both safe to humans and effective at eradicating the light brown apple moth." The 7-0 vote by the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee goes beyond Gov. Schwarzenegger's recent decision to halt spraying statewide until around August 17, when the results of limited testing on acute health impacts are expected. This latest legislation sends the clear, albeit unusual, message that logic trumps politics when it comes to public safety.

The strength of the resolution lies in its requirement that the CDFA prove two things:

That the spray is safe to humans.
That the spray is an effective way to eradicate the light brown apple moth.

The CDFA may have their work cut out for them. According to a recent panel of bug experts including Jim Carey, an etymologist who has worked with CDFA in the past, aerial spraying of pheromone-based chemicals is "ineffective even as a control tool." The method has never been used to successfully eradicate the moth, and current testing to identify the formula's potential to do so is still incomplete.

This latest Senate resolution, along with a judge's recent halting of the spraying in Santa Cruz county, would seem to put the burden of safety and efficacy back in the lap of the CDFA, which is exactly where it belongs. There remains, however, some skepticism about whether or not CDFA can provide such reassurances.

Exactly how the government intends to test for the as-yet-undisclosed chemical's safety, and what health impacts they'll test for, is still unknown. According to a San Francisco Chronicle report, the state will conduct "a series of tests on possible eye, inhalation, respiratory and other potential irritants." Research Director Caroline Cox, of the Center for Environmental Health, expressed reservations about the lack of attention to potential long-term health effects, noting that the proposed tests "do not include any testing for important long-term health problems like cancer, birth defects, or genetic damage."

The testing will be done by a USDA contractor, according to the Chronicle report, which may also raise questions about a potential conflict of interest. The USDA, after all, has been working hand-in-hand with the CDFA to develop the current eradication plan. Given the fact that the government agencies advocating the spray and the citizen groups opposing the spray both have a clear agenda, it may be difficult to find an unbiased middle ground. But that's exactly what needs to happen if any real solutions to the LBAM infestation are to be found.

Additional References:
Full text of the passed resolution.
Press release about the legislation.
Recap of expert panel presentation.
Judge, Schwarzenegger Stop Apple Moth Spraying (CBS5)

Judge Suspends Santa Cruz Spray: What Happened to the "Emergency?"

2008-04-24T18:12:00.000-07:00

The aerial spray controversy as played out in the media and among citizen groups has so far been framed as a health and environmental debate, and a California Supreme Court judge has brought a sliver of common sense to this framework today:

"A judge today ordered aerial spraying in Santa Cruz County against the light brown apple moth be halted until the state conducts a comprehensive environmental review of the impacts. The ruling came as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger separately announced in Sacramento that the state would postpone planned spraying to eradicate the moth in the 12 counties where it has been found until a series of safety tests could be completed...'It brings into question their whole campaign that this is an emergency situation,' [said county spokeswoman Dinah Phillips.]" [Full Story]

But while identifying the potential health and environmental impacts of the spray is extremely important, I can't help but feel that we're still arguing over a red herring. Because no one has conclusively demonstrated:

That LBAM is an immediate threat to anything;
That LBAM can even be eradicated by aerial spraying;
What kind of damage is likely to actually occur if alternative treatments are pursued.

Strategic planning 101 (along with good old common sense) tells us that before we jump ahead to implementing questionable methodology, we need to first identify the exact problem we're trying to solve, and then identify the most logical approach to solving this problem. Only then can we begin to suggest specific tactics. The chronology looks like this:

Identify the problem.
The problem is not necessarily the existence of LBAM. The problem - according to CDFA and Suterra - is preserving California's agricultural economy. But the State, with prompting from the feds, has jumped to the simplistic conclusion that eradicating LBAM is the only way to save California's agricultural economy.
Identify the most effective approach.
But does complete eradication even make sense? Or is controlling the LBAM population a more effective approach to solving the problem?
Identify all tactical options.
This is where policy makers tend to screw up royally, whether they're at the government, business or community level. They go for the familiar first, not the most logical or the most effective. Because of that, it becomes essential when making important decisions (ones that impact the health of people and planet) to look at all options before picking one.
Weigh the options according to multiple factors.
Once you open the process up to possibilities, you can weigh those possibilities according to various factors (cost, logistical implementation, effectiveness at solving the identified problem, public opinion, environmental and health impacts, etc). The CDFA, unfortunately, has allowed their own agenda to weigh more heavily than, say, the public health agenda. Ultimately, though, any quality decision-making process must measure all of these factors, giving fair weight to each.

So there you have it: a logical process that leads to good solutions. Of course, this isn't the process the State is using. They declared an "emergency," enabling them to bypass the few regulations that actually protect the public, and immediately picked a solution that would benefit them and their Big Ag business partners.

CDFA has already said they'll appeal the judges stay, of course. But now they've got more at stake, because if the delay does not result in LBAM causing significant and immediate damage, there goes their case. Maybe that's why they were in such a hurry to spray us down in the first place.

Latest News Coverage on the Spray

2008-04-22T14:44:00.000-07:00

Well, the word is certainly getting around, which is great. As with any media story, some folks are better than others at getting the facts straight, but the general consensus seems to be that as public outcry continues to grow, the State may find itself forced to take a different approach to an aerial spray.

Articles:

State Fears Economic Impact of Moth Spray. A.P. via Capital Press, Apr. 18
Key Quote: "Still, public uncertainty alone could be enough to slow summer tourism, drive residents to leave town and cause real estate agents to initiate conversations with their clients about whether they want to buy property in the proposed spray zone, local government officials say."
Officials Hit Obstacles in Apple Moth Battle. ThePacker.com, Apr. 21
Key Quote: "The joint effort by the California Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fight an infestation of the light brown apple moth continues to encounter roadblocks. The result could be the use of stronger, more conventional tools to eradicate the pest, said Steve Lyle, director of public affairs for the state agency."
USDA Under Fire Over Apple Moth. California Farmer, Apr. 21
Key Quote: "'The bureaucracy that led to the moth being labeled a dangerous pest is unclear,' Rep. Farr said following the hearing. 'If we don't even know why the moth is listed as a dangerous pest, it's impossible to determine how far we must go to control it or whether the current emergency eradication tactics are justified.'"
Moms Mobilize to Stop Moth Spraying. SF Chronicle, Apr. 15
Key Quote: "'Nothing gets people more irate than a government institution spraying their kids from a plane,' said Jared Blumenfeld, director of the San Francisco Department of the Environment. 'It's a bad movie. And nobody wants to be in that movie.'"
Marin Fears Economic Damage from Apple Moth. Marin Independent Journal via Inside Bay Area, Apr. 18
Key Quote: "Helge Hellberg, executive director of Marin Organic, agrees a ground attack is the way to go. 'We are very concerned about the economic damage that this may cause. Of course we see the need to combat pests, but we are in full support of a ground-based means,' he said."

Articles on official resolutions opposing the spray:

EB Parks Opposes Aerial Spraying for Moth. Silicon Valley Mercury News, Apr. 16
Key Quote: "In a resolution adopted on a 6-0 vote with one abstention, the park board said it won't consider supporting the spraying until a full-blown environmental impact report assesses the chemicals the state plans to spray in parts of western Contra Costa and Alameda counties."
Alameda: City Council Approves Resolution to Oppose Apple Moth Spraying. CBS5.com, Apr. 15
Key Quote: "In addition to opposing the spraying planned to begin Aug. 1 in parts of San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties, the City Council voted to support proposed state legislation that would restrict eradication efforts and require an environmental impact report to be conducted before spraying begins."

Editorials:

Look Past Sacramento for Moth Mess. Monterey County Herald, Apr. 21
Key Quote: "No matter how safe the spray is, there needs to be more official research — and, eventually, some real answers — on whether the moth is really capable of causing significant crop damage or if it is a threat only because its mere existence can lead to trade restrictions for reasons that may be as political as they are scientific."
Non-Aerial Solution to Moth Requires Quick Action in Marin. Marin Independent Journal, Apr. 21
Key Quote: "We believe that an intensified ground-based effort now will prohibit or greatly reduce the spread of light brown apple moth populations, reduce the potential need for quarantine of Bay Area produce and the related increased use of pesticides, and may ultimately avoid the need for any aerial treatment in the future. The Marin Agriculture Commissioner's office is prepared to implement a "train the trainer" program if we can get the go-ahead and money from the state."
Teen Calls for Truth, Common Sense. Marin Independent Journal, Apr. 18
Key Quote: "I went to work organizing a panel in my hometown of Mill Valley to discuss the spray. The meeting drew 150 people, but not everyone has to organize a town meeting to make a difference. All of these actions represent the qualms Marin residents feel, yet none of them will singlehandedly force those higher up to listen. Collectively, we all must do our part and call the governor and tell him: Do not spray."

"Do Not Spray" Article From PlanetSave

2008-04-22T09:15:00.000-07:00

From PlanetSave:

"...California officials fear LBAM poses a potential threat to the state’s agriculture, but their own projections state the greatest environmental impact as:

'Establishment of this moth could cause direct environmental damage via increased pesticide use statewide by commercial and residential growers and via adverse feeding impacts on native plants.'

That’s right, the pesticide used to control LBAM pose a risk that may be greater than the moth itself..."

[Read the full article.]

FLYER: Non-SF Specific

2008-04-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

The previous flyer I posted specifically references San Francisco, so if you live in one of the dozens of other cities to be sprayed, here's a California version you can download and distribute:

(Click the images to download a full-size PDF: or just click this link.)

Open Letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger

2008-04-18T10:59:00.000-07:00

This was my letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger; feel free to adapt it when contacting your local politicians.

Dear Mr. Governor,

I am writing as yet another concerned citizen and small business owner who is vehemently opposed to the CDFA's plans to conduct aerial pesticide spraying over a large portion of your State's residential population. While I certainly support measures to protect California's essential vegetation, it is untenable to sacrifice human health and safety for such unproven methodology. I believe the State has a responsibility to cancel its aerial pesticide spraying plans for the following reasons:

1. Widespread aerial pesticide spraying as a means of successfully controlling the light brown apple moth is experimental and unproven, and in fact not recommended by relevant scientists and ag researchers.

See: Integrated Pest Management Practices for the LBAM in New Zealand: Implications for California
See: IPM Task Force Chair Nan Wishner's testimony in front of the California Assembly Ag Committee
See: California Certified Organic Farmers Oppose the Spray

2. Widespread aerial pesticide spraying as a means of successfully controlling the light brown apple moth has not been proven safe for humans, and has in fact already caused detrimental health effects in the public.

See: CheckMate MSDS
See: HOPE Executive Summary of 643 Health Complaints

3. Widespread aerial pesticide spraying is detrimental to the reputation and economic health of the State of California, and has already caused damage.

See: Tourism, Real Estate Brace for Impact
See: Pesticide Maker Owned by Political Donor
See: Berkeley May Sue Over Moth Spraying

4. Widespread citizen opposition to aerial pesticide spraying continues to grow, and the voices of those who will be sprayed deserve to be heard.

See: California Certified Organic Farmers, Stop the Spray, LBAMspray.org, California Alliance to Stop the Spray, Stop the Spray Marin, Play Not Spray, Don't Spray California

Governor Schwarzenegger, given that the State cannot prove the safety of the spray, and that many in the scientific and agricultural community oppose it, and that the citizens who will be sprayed oppose it, how can you justify proceeding with such plans?

If the State intends to use unproven and experimental techniques to control an agricultural pest, the State must hold the burden of proof that their techniques are safe for humans. Given that the State cannot support its claims of safety, it can only appear that California intends to treat its citizens as medical guinea pigs. Not only is this unacceptable to the citizens of California, but as public opposition continues to grow and capture the nation's attention, it will be unacceptable to the citizens of the United States as a whole.

Thank you for your sincere consideration of these matters.

CheckMate Product Label

2008-04-18T10:20:00.001-07:00

Last year, areas along the Central Coast were sprayed with CheckMate LBAM-F and CheckMate ORL-F. The State plans on using a reformulated (but yet undisclosed) version of this spray on us this summer. Download the full PDF of the CheckMate LBAM-F product label (or right-click on the image below):

From the manufacturer's material safety data sheet (PDF):

"Long-term studies on the active ingredients have not been done, however, no adverse effects expected...Do not allow product to contaminate water sources, food or feed."

Let's be realistic about these chemicals, shall we?

The chemical is a known irritant, according to its own MSDS.
There are multiple formulations of this brand name registered as a pesticide with the EPA.
Some of the "inert" ingredients in the already-sprayed formulations may cause genetic mutations, cancer, and may effect the central nervous system (see: multiple MSDS for the inert ingredients)

This isn't some harmless "moth perfume" they want to spray. By the State's own admission, no one really knows exactly what this might do to our individual health, to our drinking water, or to our food supply. Before this stuff is dumped on our heads, shouldn't there be some long-term studies?

Find Your Local Legislators

2008-04-17T22:14:00.000-07:00

A lot of folks have been asking about who they should contact. Good question. You've got a lot of options, but the following contact methods are presented here in their most effective order:

Personalized letter
Phone call
Fax
Email
Form letter/postcard

Eventually, I'll be posting boilerplate language you can use as a base for your own communications. For now, though, I'm sure you have a few thoughts of your own you'd like to share! Just remember: be nice and stick to the facts (here's some great advice about contacting politicians).

Your Senators (Federal):

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
112 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510
P: (202) 224-3553 / F: (415) 403-0100 / email
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
331 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3841 / F: (559) 485-7430 / email

Your Representatives (Federal - not sure who to contact? Search here):

Baca, Joe, California, 43rd
Becerra, Xavier, California, 31st
Berman, Howard, California, 28th
Bilbray, Brian P., California, 50th
Bono, Mary, California, 45th
Calvert, Ken, California, 44th
Campbell, John, California, 48th
Capps, Lois, California, 23rd
Cardoza, Dennis, California, 18th
Costa, Jim, California, 20th
Davis, Susan, California, 53rd
Doolittle, John, California, 4th
Dreier, David, California, 26th
Eshoo, Anna G., California, 14th
Farr, Sam, California, 17th
Filner, Bob, California, 51st
Gallegly, Elton, California, 24th
Harman, Jane, California, 36th
Herger, Wally, California, 2nd
Honda, Mike, California, 15th
Hunter, Duncan, California, 52nd
Issa,Darrell, California, 49th
Lee, Barbara, California, 9th
Lewis, Jerry, California, 41st
Lofgren, Zoe, California, 16th
Lungren, Daniel E., California, 3rd
Matsui, Doris O., California, 5th
McCarthy, Kevin, California, 22nd
McKeon, Buck, California, 25th
McNerney, Jerry, California, 11th
Miller, Gary, California, 42nd
Miller, George, California, 7th
Napolitano, Grace, California, 38th
Nunes, Devin, California, 21st
Pelosi, Nancy, California, 8th
Radanovich, George P., California, 19th
Richardson, Laura, California, 37th
Rohrabacher, Dana, California, 46th
Roybal-Allard, Lucille, California, 34th
Royce, Ed, California, 40th
Sanchez, Linda, California, 39th
Sanchez, Loretta, California, 47th
Schiff, Adam, California, 29th
Sherman, Brad, California, 27th
Solis, Hilda, California, 32nd
Speier, Jackie, California, 12th
Stark, Fortney Pete, California, 13th
Tauscher, Ellen, California, 10th
Thompson, Mike, California, 1st
Waters, Maxine, California, 35th
Watson, Diane E., California, 33rd
Waxman, Henry, California, 30th
Woolsey, Lynn, California, 6th

House of Representatives phonebook
Search for your Rep

Your Governor (State):

Arnold Schwarzenegger (please spell his name right!) (R-CA)
State Capitol Building, Sacramento, CA 95814
P: 916-445-2841 / F: 916-558-3160 / email

Your Assembly Members (State - or search by zip code):

Adams, Anthony	59th	(916) 319-2059	comments
Aghazarian, Greg	26th	(916) 319-2026	comments
Anderson, Joel	77th	(916) 319-2077	[email]
Arambula, Juan	31st	(916) 319-2031	comments
Bass, Karen	47th	(916) 319-2047	[email]
Beall, Jim Jr.	24th	(916) 319-2024	[email]
Benoit, John J.	64th	(916) 319-2064	[email]
Berg, Patty	1st	(916) 319-2001	comments
Berryhill, Tom	25th	(916) 319-2025	comments
Blakeslee, Sam	33rd	(916) 319-2033	[email]
Brownley, Julia	41st	(916) 319-2041	[email]
Caballero, Anna M.	28th	(916) 319-2028	[email]
Calderon, Charles M.	58th	(916) 319-2058	comments
Carter, Wilmer Amina	62nd	(916) 319-2062	[email]
Cook, Paul	65th	(916) 319-2065	[email]
Coto, Joe	23rd	(916) 319-2023	comments
Davis, Mike	48th	(916) 319-2048	[email]
De La Torre, Hector	50th	(916) 319-2050	[email]
de Leon, Kevin	45th	(916) 319-2045	[email]
DeVore, Chuck	70th	(916) 319-2070	[email]
DeSaulnier, Mark	11 th	(916) 319-2011	[email]
Duvall, Michael D.	72nd	(916) 319-2072	comments
Dymally, Mervyn M.	52nd	(916) 319-2052	[email]
Emmerson, Bill	63rd	(916) 319-2063	[email]
Eng, Mike	49th	(916) 319-2049	comments
Evans, Noreen	7th	(916) 319-2007	comments
Feuer, Mike	42nd	(916) 319-2042	[email]
Fuentes, Felipe	39th	(916) 319-2039	comments
Fuller, Jean	32nd	(916) 319-2032	[email]
Furutani, Warren T.	55th	(916) 319-2055	[email]
Gaines, Ted	4th	(916) 319-2004	[email]
Galgiani, Cathleen	17th	(916) 319-2017	[email]
Garcia, Bonnie	80th	(916) 319-2080	comments
Garrick, Martin	74th	(916) 319-2074	[email]
Hancock, Loni	14th	(916) 319-2014	comments
Hayashi, Mary	18th	(916) 319-2018	[email]
Hernandez, Edward P.	57th	(916) 319-2057	[email]
Horton, Shirley	78th	(916) 319-2078	[email]
Houston, Guy S.	15th	(916) 319-2015	comments
Huff, Bob	60th	(916) 319-2060	comments
Huffman, Jared	6th	(916) 319-2006	comments
Jeffries, Kevin	66th	(916) 319-2066	comments
Jones, Dave	9th	(916) 319-2009	[email]
Karnette, Betty	54th	(916) 319-2054	[email]
Keene, Rick	3rd	(916) 319-2003	[email]
Krekorian, Paul	43rd	(916) 319-2043	[email]
La Malfa, Doug	2nd	(916) 319-2002	[email]
Laird, John	27th	(916) 319-2027	comments
Leno, Mark	13 th	(916) 319-2013	comments
Levine, Lloyd E.	40th	(916) 319-2040	[email]
Lieber, Sally J.	22nd	(916) 319-2022	[email]
Lieu, Ted W.	53rd	(916) 319-2053	[email]
Ma, Fiona	12 th	(916) 319-2012	[email]
Maze, Bill	34th	(916) 319-2034	comments
Mendoza, Tony	56th	(916) 319-2056	[email]
Mullin, Gene	19th	(916) 319-2019	comments
Nakanishi, Alan	10th	(916) 319-2010	comments
Nava, Pedro	35th	(916) 319-2035	[email]
Niello, Roger	5th	(916) 319-2005	[email]
Núñez, Fabian	46th	(916) 319-2046	[email]
Parra, Nicole	30th	(916) 319-2030	[email]
Plescia, George A.	75th	(916) 319-2075	[email]
Portantino, Anthony J.	44th	(916) 319-2044	comments
Price, Curren D. Jr.	51st	(916) 319-2051	[email]
Runner, Sharon	36th	(916) 319-2036	[email]
Ruskin, Ira	21st	(916) 319-2021	[email]
Salas, Mary	79th	(916) 319-2079	[email]
Saldaña, Lori	76th	(916) 319-2076	comments
Silva, Jim	67th	(916) 319-2067	[email]
Smyth, Cameron	38th	(916) 319-2038	comments
Solorio, Jose	69th	(916) 319-2069	comments
Soto, Nell	61st	(916) 319-2061	comments
Spitzer, Todd	71st	(916) 319-2071	[email]
Strickland, Audra	37th	(916) 319-2037	[email]
Swanson, Sandre R.	16th	(916) 319-2016	comments
Torrico, Alberto	20th	(916) 319-2020	[email]
Tran, Van	68th	(916) 319-2068	[email]
Villines, Michael N.	29th	(916) 319-2029	comments
Walters, Mimi	73rd	916) 319-2073	[email]
Wolk, Lois	8th	(916) 319-2008	[email]

Your Local City Government:

Search for your county or city website here, and follow the links to contact your local reps.

Ten Simple Things You Can Do To Help

2008-04-17T20:47:00.000-07:00

Join the tens of thousands of other residents who refuse to be sprayed! You don't have to become an activist, and you don't have to give up your valuable time. Just pick and choose from the following easy steps, and make your voice heard.

Sign the petition to stop the spray.
Learn the facts about their plans.
Write an email to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who currently supports the spray.
Write an email to Sen. Migden, who's filed legislation to delay the spray.
Send an email to everyone you know telling them about the spray (or linking to this blog post).
Write a letter to your legislators voicing your opinion.
Attend the meetings on 4/15 and 4/16 to add your voice.
Flyer your block, neighborhood or town to inform your community.
Send out a MySpace, FaceBook or other social networking bulletin about this.
Blog about the spray, or simply link to this post.

Get Involved: Other Anti-Spray Groups

2008-04-17T20:22:00.001-07:00

The following groups are all actively working to stop aerial pesticide spraying of urbam residents:

Overview of the Spray

2008-04-17T20:19:00.001-07:00

The following information is intended to provide an overview of the State's plans to spray California with an undisclosed chemical. I'll be posting more in-depth analysis as I can, so please look for future explorations of spraying alternatives, chemical impact on human health and the environment, and political activity surrounding the spray.

The Plan
California's Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) will begin aerial spraying of urban populations this summer in an attempt to eradicate the light brown apple moth (LBAM).

The Method
Low-flying airplanes (500-800 feet) will drop an undisclosed chemical over the selected areas for three times per month for nine months. This will continue for 3-5 years (or longer, if the moth is not eradicated by then). This aerial spraying will be in addition to other land-based methods of eradication/control.

Areas Affected
Over seven million California residents will be directly impacted, including the following counties:

San Francisco
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
San Mateo
Monterey and Santa Cruz

However, the entire State of California could experience economic, environmental and health impacts as well. There are implications for the country as a whole, too, since the USDA has already initiated surveys to identify if the LBAM exists anywhere else.

The Moth
The light brown apple moth is an "invasive" pest that has not yet been reported to cause significant crop damage in California. California populations were officially identified in 2007, but population densities and locations indicate that it has been around for a decade or more. This implies that the emergency spraying measures may very well be an overreaction and a distraction from more effective methods of control. [source: UC Davis]

The Chemical
We don't actually know the specific formula that the State will be spraying us with. Last year, they sprayed Monterey county with various formulations of CheckMate, a synthetic pheromone, including CheckMate LBAM-F and CheckMate ORL-F. These have, apparently, been reformulated and the new versions have not undergone long-term studies for safety on humans. The idea is that the chemical - a synthetic pheromone - disrupts the moth's mating habits. But according to testimony by botanist Daniel Harder, there is no evidence that this method actually works.

Another issue is that the manufacturer of CheckMate is not legally required to disclose the full ingredient list of the formulation to be used. The chemicals are encapsulated in plastic, which are then easily inhaled and embedded in the lungs. Download material safety data sheets on CheckMate.

The Health Effects
As far as I've read, the government has no intention of implementing a monitoring system to track the potential health impact of the spray. Nor did they implement a formal tracking system when they sprayed the Monterey population last year. The admittedly incomplete studies done after the fact there revealed over 600 reports of adverse affects. Nor have there been any long-term studies of the health impact on a human population exposed to such chemicals. However, the CheckMate label itself reads "Potentially harmful if swallowed, absorbed through skin, or inhaled."

Spraying Locations

2008-04-17T19:13:00.000-07:00

Even if you don't live in California, you ought to be concerned about the State's plans to aerially spray its urban populations with chemicals. The USDA has initiated a survey of all 50 states to locate other potential LBAM populations. Since governments notoriously work from the status quo, it's highly likely that whatever actions California takes to handle this moth will set the precedent throughout the country.

CDFA will spray acreage in the following counties:

Beginning June 1, 2008:

Monterey and Santa Cruz counties including:

Aptos
Aromas
Ben Lomond
Boulder Creek
Castroville
Corralitos
Del Rey Oaks
Felton
Los Lomas
Marina
Monterey
Pajaro
Pebble Beach
Prunedale
Rio Del Mar
Santa Cruz
Scotts Valley
Seaside
Watsonville

Beginning August 1, 2008:

San Francisco
Alameda
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
Piedmont
Contra Costa
El Cerrito
El Sobrante
Hercules
Pinole
Richmond
Marin
Belvedere
Larkspur
Sausalito
Tiburon
San Mateo
Broadmoor
Brisbane
Colma
Daly City
Pacifica
San Bruno
South San Francisco

Poster Download: Spread the Word on the Spray

2008-04-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

For those of you who live in California and want to spread the word, please help yourself to this poster. Download a PDF of either version by clicking on the image. Then take it your local copy shop and start passing them out to friends, neighbors and especially local businesses (and if you are a local business, please post this in your window for all to see).

The petition continues to grow, with over 22,000 people refusing to be sprayed. Let's keep it growing!

California Plans to Use Citizens as Guinea Pigs: Why Every U.S. Resident Should Care

2008-04-14T12:25:00.000-07:00

Beginning this summer, airplanes will fly 500-800 feet over California, spraying hundreds of thousands of California residents with an untested pesticide called CheckMate. This will start one night in June, and will happen again three nights a month for nine whole months. None of us will know which nights our towns are being sprayed, and none of us will be able to stop it. Your children will wake up the following morning, head to the park, breathe in the air, play on the jungle gym, and you will have no idea if their little hands are coated in the CheckMate pesticide. You might even be walking home from the BART station one evening, and hear that low-flying plane hum over you as it drops its load.

This ain't no horror story - it's actually going to happen. The State's Department of Food and Agriculture is initiating the largest aerial pesticide spray in the history of the United States because it's afraid the light brown apple moth will take over our plants.

Never mind that the evidence suggests that this moth has been with us for decades causing no harm whatsoever (and has, in fact, been controlled by natural predators).
Never mind that scientists across the globe have dealt with this moth before, and advised California that widespread spraying will do no good.
Never mind that the State's previous spraying last year resulted in well over 600 reported ill health effects.
Never mind that a man named Stewart Resnick, an agribusiness man whose farming company happens to own the manufacturer of CheckMate (the pesticide to be sprayed on us) has made generous political contributions to our State's officials.
And never, ever mind that 19,000 citizens and counting have said out loud that they do not want to be sprayed.

And why should anyone who lives outside of California care? One simple reason: we are the nation's guinea pigs. The USDA recently announced plans to survey all 50 U.S. states to see if the light brown apple moth can be found anywhere else. If they do, you can bet that state officials where you live will look to California as an example for how to deal with it. Even though California's approach won't work.

So what can we do? Do we sit back and inhale the fumes? Do we let agribusiness dump pesticides literally on our heads? Close our eyes and hope we don't get sick? This is not a joke, and this is not the State's choice to make for us.

Join the tens of thousands of other residents who refuse to be sprayed! You don't have to become an activist, and you don't have to give up your valuable time. Just pick and choose from the following easy steps, and make your voice heard.

Sign the petition to stop the spray.
Learn the facts about their plans.
Write an email to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who currently supports the spray.
Write an email to Sen. Migden, who's filed legislation to delay the spray.
Send an email to everyone you know telling them about the spray (or linking to this blog post).
Write a letter to your legislators voicing your opinion.
Attend the meetings on 4/15 and 4/16 to add your voice.
Flyer your block, neighborhood or town to inform your community.
Send out a MySpace, FaceBook or other social networking bulletin about this.
Blog about the spray, or simply link to this post.

Get loud. Get angry. This is your air, and your body. Don't let them f--- with it.

Pennsylvania Says Information is the Enemy

2007-11-14T13:56:00.000-08:00

If you're one of the thousands of consumers who likes to know what chemicals go into your food, Pennsylvania has a big screw you for ya:

"Effective Jan. 1, dairies selling milk in Pennsylvania, the nation's fifth-largest dairy state, will be banned from advertising on milk containers that their product comes from cows that have never been treated with rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin."

That's right—dairies are no longer allowed to let their customers know that they don't give rBST to their cows. The result is that customers will have no way of knowing which dairy products they buy are hormone free (unless they buy certified organics).

The law is likely going to spread (New Jersey and Ohio are next) as Monsanto, the country's largest producer of agro-chemicals used on our nation's food supply, lobbies state governments to increase the ban. Their logic? Letting customers know what's not in our milk "implies that competitors' milk is not safe."

There is something excruciatingly perverse about this ruling, and it's not just that agribusiness and government are trying to keep information from consumers. What's really perverse is that dairies are labeling their milk "rBST free" because consumers want them to; it adds value to the product. Monsanto recognizes this, and instead of adapting their business paradigm to meet this dramatic shift in consumer demand, they are forcing consumers to conform to their standards. That's not really how the free market is supposed to work, though, is it?

Further reading:
Full story from STLtoday.com
Bovine growth hormone information from the Organic Consumers' Association
List of rBST free dairy producers

[Cross-posted to Blog!]

Sustainability vs. Luxury: Are They Really At Odds?

2007-10-30T18:41:00.000-07:00

Whatever you personal feelings about Al Gore, he must be doing something right (you don’t win the Nobel Peace Prize, after all, for failing miserably). Thanks in no small part to Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, the American public’s awareness of environmental concerns has grown considerably in recent years. This increased awareness brings with it a fascinating process of learning, questioning, justifying, arguing and, sometimes, changing. Since our industrial revolution, America has been a society of consumers, embracing values of luxury and carefree (careless?) spending. With the advent of the climate crisis, this consumerism is being challenged. But is luxury truly anathema to sustainability? Must we really choose between consumption and abstinence?

Ask the average citizen what it takes to be sustainable, or green, and you’ll likely hear something along the lines of, “Give up the fun stuff.” This model is perpetuated by the environmental movement itself, whose primary motto is “reduce, reuse, recycle,” implying we must reduce our indulgences before anything can be done to save us. Charlotte McGuinn Freeman, of the Living Small blog recently summed up this pervasive attitude rather bluntly in a recent entry for The Ethicurian: “I hate to be the one to point it out, but luxury and sustainability are contradictory values.” Clearly, this belief runs deep, regardless of which side of the fence you shop on.

Is it true, though?

Is it possible to live in extravagance without damaging the environment? Is it possible to thoughtlessly consume without essentially shitting your waste all over the place? Right now, the answer is no. Thanks to an unchecked economic system that has never once factored environmental resources into the cost of doing business, we now have a world of goods made from toxins, that produce toxins, and end up as toxins in landfill.

Just imagine if companies— the building blocks of our current economy—assigned a real dollar value to the cost of natural resources. I’m not even talking about the expense of strip mining, for example, with all its OSHA regulations and heavy machinery. I’m talking about costs like the lost productivity of worker-drones who don’t have access to sunlight and fresh air, or the long-term cost of depleting oil reserves without a sufficient energy source to replace them. These are real costs to businesses of all sizes, but when was the last time you took a hard look at the “waste disposal” line item on your P&L?

The truth is that the products we make and sell and buy are damaging us even as they make our lives easier in the short term. Pesticides that help us produce more food faster actually leach into water sources, for example, then leach into the fish swimming in those water sources, then leach into those of us who eat that fish. Or, on a simpler level, take your latest purchase at OfficeMax: how much of what you just paid for is actually for plastic packaging that you sent to a landfill as soon as it passed through your business’ doors?

It’s not doomsday yet, though.

As I write this, R&D departments throughout the world are racing to find new, better alternatives. At one time, recycled paper was a crappy alternative to virgin pulp paper but thanks to technological development, we now have gorgeous, affordable recycled paper options at our disposal. The Prius is another, if imperfect, example. A process once hidden from the public’s gaze is now snowballing into the limelight. Companies are recognizing that the up-front R&D costs generally pale in comparison to the ROI to be seen down the road. And we small businesses get to piggyback on their innovation.

What they’re working on is really incredible, and incredibly sexy. Cars that run on air (they exist!); treatment plants that clean wastewater using the gas from their own processes (okay, that last one's not so sexy, but it's really cool). These advances have already been made, and now it’s a matter of applying our technological capabilities to their mass production so they become the norm and not the exception. Quickly. And that happens through publicity (cue Al Gore) and the build-up of demand.

It’s a beautiful cycle, isn’t it? And it’s why I believe that luxury and sustainability are not contradictory values in and of themselves. With our current production framework, no, of course they can’t coexist. But our current framework is changing. If regenerative products become the norm—products that add to the health of our environment rather than detract from it—it could conceivably mean that carefree consumption can actually be an environmentally friendly action.

One has to happen first for the other to be true, of course. But the change is happening. So as we continue to demand that the end-user change their habits, we need to also demand—even more strenuously—that the producers change theirs.

[Cross-posted to Blog!]

Pause...

2007-09-20T14:14:00.000-07:00

Ain't life grand? Before I address my absence, I'd like to give you a huge THANKS for your interest in, participation in, and general support of Small Failures. I continue to be bowled over by the generosity of my readers, and it's incredibly reassuring to know that this blog has found a place in so many daily routines. How odd. Obviously, I've taken some time off from the blog post-car accident, simply for lack of energy. I'm going to continue to do so, with the caveat that you're not entirely free of me yet.

In the meantime, if you're interested in what is inevitably a more tangential interpretation of my brain waves, you might like to check out Blog! Unruly in presentation (it's being redesigned, I promise), and completely random in coverage, Blog! is just my way of cataloging the neural buzz in the back of my brain (inconsistent though it may be). Check it out, you might discover some cool stuff (including Small Failures-esque topics).

Thanks for your patience!

Eat Local Coming Up!

2007-08-30T12:39:00.000-07:00

Before I start posting regularly again, I just want to remind everyone that the Eat
Local Challenge starts on Saturday. I'm going to try and participate even though I hadn't done any of the planning ahead and research I'd planned to (thanks to you know what). That's okay, though; the beauty of the challenge is that it's only as strict or as accommodating as you want it to be.

I'd also like to point out that yesterday was the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. The Times-Picayune published an article remembering the disaster, the victims and the survivors.

The Blink of an Eye

2007-08-09T12:31:00.000-07:00

It's easy to create drama on the internet, to make more of something than it really is. On Friday, August 3rd, I was in a car crash. I've called it an accident on occasion since, when discussing it with family and friends, but it did not feel like an accident. When a stranger so violently and deliberately steers a car through a red light, accident feels somehow an inappropriate word.

The moment itself was exactly like the movies—the noise, the telescoping of time, a car sailing through the air. The most incredible part for me, though, was not the drama of what happened but what didn't happen. I did not die. In fact, all three of us drivers involved opened our car doors, stepped outside, and made our way to the sidewalk where we were engulfed by a growing crowd.

The fact that I am, relatively speaking, okay—hurting, achy, bruised, swollen—but okay (that is, alive), still slightly surprises me almost a week later. I don't put it that way for the sense of drama, but because going into it I was sure I wouldn't be. As soon as it dawned on me that this woman was going to drive at full speed straight through her red light and into me, I braced for something I knew would happen. The impact came sure enough. But afterwards, looking up at that green light through my windshield, I had to double check to make sure it wasn't a symbolic green light.

The point of all this is nothing more than an explanation for why you haven't heard from me all week. And for why you probably won't hear from me for a while longer yet. The crash has raised some funny questions for me. Not questions about guardian angels or reasons for things happening, but questions about how I can spend my time now that I can't sit in front of a computer for very long. According to my statistics, there are a lot more of you readers out there than I ever would have expected and it occurs to me that I don't know you very well. I'd like to. Because although writing on the internet is often an exercise in egotism, for me it is also about the craft of writing and exploring ideas.

So now that my time online is limited, I want to make the most of it. Will you tell me what you think? About it all: your experience with this site, with the ideas I write about, with what you'd really like to read about, with all of it? There are all kinds of rules and tips and suggestions for writing on the net; much of it is either bullshit or common sense and I'd like to offer a little bit more than that. I would love for you to leave your thoughts below, or even to email me directly if you prefer.

[I've also posted this entry on my other blog, Bar Stories.]

More Energy Calculators

2007-08-02T17:22:00.000-07:00

There are, of course, a huge number of calculators online that offer visitors the chance to discover just how nasty or nice to the environment our living habits actually are. My beef with these calculators is twofold:

They rarely explain the math behind the calculations.
They often gloss over many of the ways in which we impact our environment.

I've just stumbled across a calculator that seems to address at least this latter problem. The Personal Environmental Impact Calculator breaks down your energy use into transportation, recycling, water, and energy. It's not exactly the sexiest calculator out there, and there are a few broken links but most of the results are well documented, and provide helpful conservation suggestions and further reading.

Factory Farms Near You

2007-08-01T15:25:00.000-07:00

If you want to see something really scary, check out the interactive map of the factory farms living throughout the U.S., provided by Food and Water Watch. Click on your state, zoom into your county and BAM! Discover the warehouses of caged animals living in death and shit near your neck of the woods.

I warned it you it was scary.

How Clean is Your Electricity?

2007-07-29T13:56:00.000-07:00

You might turn the lights off when you leave the room and replace your standard bulbs with CFLs but unless you're living by candlelight, chances are you're still using plenty of electricity. So where does your electricity come from? Mine comes from PG&E, who are desperately trying to brand themselves as one of the greener energy providers out there. What about your energy provider? Chances are, you don't know squat about the company name on your utility bill.

Well, the EPA has a handy little look-up tool called the Power Profiler that tells you just how "clean" your provider is. It breaks down the energy sources for your zip code, and compares your portion of the grid to the rest of the country. Pretty nifty, huh?

And once you've been suitably shocked into action, you can search for green energy providers in your state.