CO2 offsets fund projects that have a net-positive effect on the environment, thereby nullifying the negative effect of the pollution you create.
TerraPass - supports wind and biomass projects.
Carbonfund - non-profit offsetter that supports solar and wind farms, promotes cleaner industry, and plants trees around the world.
Native Energy - supports Native American alternative-energy projects.
Consumers' Guide to Retail Carbon Offsets - not all offsets are created equal.
Climate Counts - compare the carbon-cutting commitments of several major corporations.
Post borrowed from Ideal Bite.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Park Yer'self
September 21st is PARK(ing) Day 2007!
Conceived by REBAR, a San Francisco-based art collective, PARK(ing) Day is a one-day, global event centered in San Francisco where artists, activists, and citizens collaborate to temporarily transform parking spots into “PARK(ing)” spaces: temporary public parks.
Learn more at PARK(ing) Day.
Conceived by REBAR, a San Francisco-based art collective, PARK(ing) Day is a one-day, global event centered in San Francisco where artists, activists, and citizens collaborate to temporarily transform parking spots into “PARK(ing)” spaces: temporary public parks.
Learn more at PARK(ing) Day.
Top Green Contractors
The Mainstreaming of Green Building
Gary J. Tulacz, ENR.com, September 19, 2007
Until recently, the notion of sustainable design or green building was hazy. There were standards being issued by groups like the U.S. Green Building Council and the Green Building Initiative, and companies were constructing showcase projects. However, in the last couple years, the concept has taken off. Membership in Washington, D.C.-based USGBC, which had just over 500 members in 2001, skyrocketed to 10,000 within five years, making it one of the fastest growing organizations in the country. Over the past decade USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system has gone a long way to define what it means to build green. “LEED is coming to be the definition of sustainable design and construction in the U.S.,” says Michael Deane, operations manager for sustainable construction for Turner Construction and a member of USGBC’s board.
For many firms, interest in green building is rising to new and unheard-of levels. “In 2004, less than 1% of our work was sustainable,” says Ted van der Linden, director of sustainable construction for DPR Construction. “In 2005, it was about 5%. By 2006, about 45% of our new work was green construction. And this year, it is tracking at about 50%.” He says not all of this work will be certified under a third-party rating system, but it will contain substantial sustainable elements.
DPR isn’t the only firm experiencing this level of green activity. “We have about $4.5 billion in backlog and nearly $2 billion is in some form of green building,” says Jeff Hoopes, executive vice president of Swinerton. For Clayco, “Clients raise the issue a sustainability in at least 35% of our projects, and we raise it in the rest,” says Paul Todd Merrill, Clayco’s director of sustainable construction. “Only about 15% of clients don’t want it.”
To read the rest of ENR's article on green buiders, visit http://enr.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=enr_document&article=febiar070919a-1.
To see ENR's list of 2007 Top 50 Green Contractors, visit http://enr.construction.com/people/topLists/greenCont/topgreenCont_1-50.asp (note SF-based Swinerton at No. 4!).
Gary J. Tulacz, ENR.com, September 19, 2007
Until recently, the notion of sustainable design or green building was hazy. There were standards being issued by groups like the U.S. Green Building Council and the Green Building Initiative, and companies were constructing showcase projects. However, in the last couple years, the concept has taken off. Membership in Washington, D.C.-based USGBC, which had just over 500 members in 2001, skyrocketed to 10,000 within five years, making it one of the fastest growing organizations in the country. Over the past decade USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system has gone a long way to define what it means to build green. “LEED is coming to be the definition of sustainable design and construction in the U.S.,” says Michael Deane, operations manager for sustainable construction for Turner Construction and a member of USGBC’s board.
For many firms, interest in green building is rising to new and unheard-of levels. “In 2004, less than 1% of our work was sustainable,” says Ted van der Linden, director of sustainable construction for DPR Construction. “In 2005, it was about 5%. By 2006, about 45% of our new work was green construction. And this year, it is tracking at about 50%.” He says not all of this work will be certified under a third-party rating system, but it will contain substantial sustainable elements.
DPR isn’t the only firm experiencing this level of green activity. “We have about $4.5 billion in backlog and nearly $2 billion is in some form of green building,” says Jeff Hoopes, executive vice president of Swinerton. For Clayco, “Clients raise the issue a sustainability in at least 35% of our projects, and we raise it in the rest,” says Paul Todd Merrill, Clayco’s director of sustainable construction. “Only about 15% of clients don’t want it.”
To read the rest of ENR's article on green buiders, visit http://enr.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=enr_document&article=febiar070919a-1.
To see ENR's list of 2007 Top 50 Green Contractors, visit http://enr.construction.com/people/topLists/greenCont/topgreenCont_1-50.asp (note SF-based Swinerton at No. 4!).
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Breaking News: Automakers Lose
Court Rules Against Automakers in Global Warming Case
Justin Hyde, Free Press Washington Bureau, September 12, 2007
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the U.S. auto industry's attempt to block California and 14 other states from setting tough new fuel economy standards, saying the industry had not proved the regulations were illegal, unsafe or unattainable.
The ruling was a big loss for the industry in the fight over whether California and other states can require more efficient vehicles to reduce emissions linked to global warming. The auto industry - Detroit and foreign companies alike - maintain the standards calling for cars to average 43 miles per gallon by 2016 isn't achievable, and would force the industry to stop selling many models.
The U.S. EPA has yet to rule on whether California can proceed with its standards, but environmental groups have expressed concern that the Bush administration will deny California and other states permission to proceed while federal regulators create their own greenhouse-gas controls for vehicles.
Read the complete story at http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070912/BUSINESS01/70912042/0/NEWS04
Also covered in the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/12/BAK2S4PLM.DTL&tsp=1
Justin Hyde, Free Press Washington Bureau, September 12, 2007
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected the U.S. auto industry's attempt to block California and 14 other states from setting tough new fuel economy standards, saying the industry had not proved the regulations were illegal, unsafe or unattainable.
The ruling was a big loss for the industry in the fight over whether California and other states can require more efficient vehicles to reduce emissions linked to global warming. The auto industry - Detroit and foreign companies alike - maintain the standards calling for cars to average 43 miles per gallon by 2016 isn't achievable, and would force the industry to stop selling many models.
The U.S. EPA has yet to rule on whether California can proceed with its standards, but environmental groups have expressed concern that the Bush administration will deny California and other states permission to proceed while federal regulators create their own greenhouse-gas controls for vehicles.
Read the complete story at http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070912/BUSINESS01/70912042/0/NEWS04
Also covered in the SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/12/BAK2S4PLM.DTL&tsp=1
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Coastal Cleanup Day
The 23rd Annual California Coastal Cleanup Day is 9:00 am to noon this Saturday, September 15th!
Visit the Coastal Commission’s website to find a cleanup site near you.
Visit the Coastal Commission’s website to find a cleanup site near you.
Top Ten Trashy Creeks
Save the Bay lists the area's most garbage-filled waterways
Peter Fimrite, SF Chronicle, September 11, 2007
Save the Bay recently released a list of the 10 worst trash hot spots ringing the San Francisco Bay, including waterways flowing through communities from San Francisco to San Jose and from Berkeley to San Rafael.
It depicts creeks and sloughs lined with diapers, cigarette butts, batteries and all kinds of household rubbish...not just from factories or refineries or sewage plants. Ecologists say the situation will get worse unless regulations are passed requiring trash-filtration systems or other cleanup measures in the many waterways flowing into the bay.
The trashiest waterways, according to Save the Bay, are Alameda Creek in Hayward; Colma Creek in South San Francisco; Coyote Creek in San Jose; Damon Slough in Oakland; Grayson Creek in Martinez; Guadalupe River in San Jose; Laurel Creek in San Mateo; San Rafael Creek in San Rafael; Strawberry Creek in Berkeley; and Yosemite Slough in San Francisco.
Read the complete story at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/11/MNL1S2QBO.DTL
Peter Fimrite, SF Chronicle, September 11, 2007
Save the Bay recently released a list of the 10 worst trash hot spots ringing the San Francisco Bay, including waterways flowing through communities from San Francisco to San Jose and from Berkeley to San Rafael.
It depicts creeks and sloughs lined with diapers, cigarette butts, batteries and all kinds of household rubbish...not just from factories or refineries or sewage plants. Ecologists say the situation will get worse unless regulations are passed requiring trash-filtration systems or other cleanup measures in the many waterways flowing into the bay.
The trashiest waterways, according to Save the Bay, are Alameda Creek in Hayward; Colma Creek in South San Francisco; Coyote Creek in San Jose; Damon Slough in Oakland; Grayson Creek in Martinez; Guadalupe River in San Jose; Laurel Creek in San Mateo; San Rafael Creek in San Rafael; Strawberry Creek in Berkeley; and Yosemite Slough in San Francisco.
Read the complete story at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/11/MNL1S2QBO.DTL
Friday, September 7, 2007
Green Investing
Launched in 1999, the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes are global indexes tracking the financial performance of corporate sustainability leaders. The indexes provide asset managers with reliable and objective benchmarks to manage sustainability portfolios. DJSI links companies implementing sustainability principles and investors wishing to support corporate sustainability (and make a few bucks in the process).
What is corporate sustainability, you ask?
According to DJSI, "Corporate Sustainability is a business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social developments. Corporate sustainability leaders achieve long-term shareholder value by gearing their strategies and management to harness the market's potential for sustainability products and services while at the same time successfully reducing and avoiding sustainability costs and risks."
Visit DJSI for more information.
What is corporate sustainability, you ask?
According to DJSI, "Corporate Sustainability is a business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social developments. Corporate sustainability leaders achieve long-term shareholder value by gearing their strategies and management to harness the market's potential for sustainability products and services while at the same time successfully reducing and avoiding sustainability costs and risks."
Visit DJSI for more information.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Greening the Bay
Financing Wetland Restoration in San Francisco Bay
Save the Bay, August 2007
Save The Bay's Greening the Bay report documents the total projected cost to nearly double tidal wetlands in San Francisco Bay. This report identifies inadequate funding as the greatest barrier to re-establishing 100,000 acres of tidal wetlands, critical habitat that scientists say is needed for a healthy bay.
Read more at http://www.savesfbay.org/site/pp.asp?c=dgKLLSOwEnH&b=3188269
Save the Bay, August 2007
Save The Bay's Greening the Bay report documents the total projected cost to nearly double tidal wetlands in San Francisco Bay. This report identifies inadequate funding as the greatest barrier to re-establishing 100,000 acres of tidal wetlands, critical habitat that scientists say is needed for a healthy bay.
Read more at http://www.savesfbay.org/site/pp.asp?c=dgKLLSOwEnH&b=3188269
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Update from the Sustainable Remediation Forum
SuRFing at the New Jersey Institute of Technology
Maile Smith, August 22, 2007
You may have been wondering why I wasn't hassling you for your input on the MEW feasibility study this week. It's because I'm attending the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF) meeting in Newark, New Jersey. SuRF was founded and meetings are organized and chaired by DuPont. This is the group's fourth meeting, but my first. I can assure you, however, that it won't be my last. This is a thoughtful and tenacious group of practitioners--representing industry, regulatory agencies, consulting companies, and NGOs--that is working to accomplish an extremely challenging objective: to establish a framework that incorporates sustainable concepts throughout the remedial action process that provides long-term protection of human health and the environment and achieves public and regulatory acceptance. Of course, the "how" to accomplish this objective is complex and will likely evolve as our understanding of sustainability and remediation science evolves. But, we are off to a great start.
Today's session began with a presentation from Deb Goldblum of EPA Region 3, about a pilot project at the DuPont Martinsville, Virginia site. A primary goal of this project is to add sustainability as a balancing criterion in RCRA remedy selection. In order to do so, they have developed a quantitative credit and debit matrix to measure the sustainability criterion.
Gil Meyer, DuPont, gave a presentation on the history of human reactions to new technologies. Technologies typically go through cycles of acceptance and controversy, facing four general factors for acceptance: (1) relative economic advantage or existing technology; (2) social value and prestige; (3) compatibility with vested interests; and (4) visibility of the direct advantages. The road to public acceptance often bounces between initial enthusiasm, commercialization, and familiarity, and rumblings of concern, public protests, and, hopefully, eventually, acceptance. The perception of risk is based on hazards + outrage, with outrage stemming from whether or not the risk is voluntary as opposed to involuntary, who is in control of the risk (e.g., I’m comfortable holding both nail and hammer, but not holding the nail and someone else swinging the hammer), if the risk familiar or not (e.g., chemicals under the sink are familiar, “not voodoo”), if the process is fair (was I or my representative involved in the process), moral issues (e.g., risks particular to children or reproductive health), and if the risk is artificial/man-made or natural.
A presentation followed from Nicola Harries, CL:AIRE (contaminated land: applications in real environments), on their UK sustainable remediation meeting. The meeting brought together attendees from UK government, regulators, industry, environmental consultants, technology vendors, contractors, other European organizations, NGOs, and academia to come up with success criteria for judging sustainability in remediation. They identified four areas for further research: literature survey (output: policy development, metrics), cost-benefit analysis framework, existing tools outside industry (e.g., life-cycle analysis), and existing tools inside industry (e.g., those developed by DuPont, Shell, etc.).
Charles Iceland, World Resources Institute, gave a presentation on their corporate ecosystem services review (ESR). His group rightly asserts that businesses are heavily dependent on ecosystem services: they both contribute to ecosystem change and use ecosystem services. WRI is partnering with Meridian Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development to develop the corporate ESR methodology, which is being “road-tested” by DuPont, BC Hydro, Monsanto, Rio Tinto, and others.
Dan Watts, NJIT, presented on the challenges of quantifying the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere. This seems like it should be a very simple question, but it has a very complex answer. The answer lies in the balance between additions (deforestation, burning of fossil fuels) and deletions (absorption by atmosphere and oceans), which equals the amount absorbed on land. This question needs to be answered in order to determine how and when we can stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels, if for only the reason that CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level continue to rise long after emissions are reduced.
Frank Evans, National Grid, gave a presentation on the use of metrics to make better sustainable remediation decisions. National Grid is a global utility company, operating in the UK and US. It has different drivers for remediation of surplus and operational land, but four common general objectives of sustainable remediation: social progress, environmental protection, prudent use of natural resources, and maintaining high and stable economic growth and employment.
Carlos Pachon from EPA, OSWER (his specific group runs Clu-In and Tech Direct), presented preliminary "flash" findings from their initial analytical approach to energy and carbon footprint for site cleanup treatment technologies in the Superfund remedial program. Their working definition of “green remediation” is the practice of considering the environmental effects of a remediation strategy early in the process and incorporating options to maximize the net environmental benefit of the cleanup action. Their preliminary goal is to foster the adoption of greener remediation practices across cleanup programs by benchmarking the state of the practice, identifying opportunities for improvement at cleanups, capacity-building and networking practitioners, and creating enabling mechanisms. So far they have found that pump-and-treat results in by far the highest energy use and carbon emissions (per project and per year and projected into the future), e.g., 402M vs. 32M kWh energy use per project and 275K vs. 16K tons of carbon emissions per year for P&T vs. multiphase extraction, respectively.
The final presentation of the day came from Dave Ellis, DuPont, which was a survey of several case studies on the use of sustainability metrics at their sites.
We finished the day with a question for the group: What are the metrics issues that most concern you?
Answers included:
- How to evaluate new factors (e.g., recycled concrete)
- The detail, implementability, and consistency of metrics
- The scale of our impact (from remediation) vs. other impacts
- Over-rating or over-valuing the sustainability criterion in remedy decisions
- How to assign value to time
- What equivalent to assign to different metrics when screening technologies or selecting remediation options
Seem like a lot to cover in one day? It was! But, to borrow a term from Ray Anderson, we've only just begun our ascent of Mt. Sustainability. We've got an exciting journey ahead of us.
Maile Smith, August 22, 2007
You may have been wondering why I wasn't hassling you for your input on the MEW feasibility study this week. It's because I'm attending the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF) meeting in Newark, New Jersey. SuRF was founded and meetings are organized and chaired by DuPont. This is the group's fourth meeting, but my first. I can assure you, however, that it won't be my last. This is a thoughtful and tenacious group of practitioners--representing industry, regulatory agencies, consulting companies, and NGOs--that is working to accomplish an extremely challenging objective: to establish a framework that incorporates sustainable concepts throughout the remedial action process that provides long-term protection of human health and the environment and achieves public and regulatory acceptance. Of course, the "how" to accomplish this objective is complex and will likely evolve as our understanding of sustainability and remediation science evolves. But, we are off to a great start.
Today's session began with a presentation from Deb Goldblum of EPA Region 3, about a pilot project at the DuPont Martinsville, Virginia site. A primary goal of this project is to add sustainability as a balancing criterion in RCRA remedy selection. In order to do so, they have developed a quantitative credit and debit matrix to measure the sustainability criterion.
Gil Meyer, DuPont, gave a presentation on the history of human reactions to new technologies. Technologies typically go through cycles of acceptance and controversy, facing four general factors for acceptance: (1) relative economic advantage or existing technology; (2) social value and prestige; (3) compatibility with vested interests; and (4) visibility of the direct advantages. The road to public acceptance often bounces between initial enthusiasm, commercialization, and familiarity, and rumblings of concern, public protests, and, hopefully, eventually, acceptance. The perception of risk is based on hazards + outrage, with outrage stemming from whether or not the risk is voluntary as opposed to involuntary, who is in control of the risk (e.g., I’m comfortable holding both nail and hammer, but not holding the nail and someone else swinging the hammer), if the risk familiar or not (e.g., chemicals under the sink are familiar, “not voodoo”), if the process is fair (was I or my representative involved in the process), moral issues (e.g., risks particular to children or reproductive health), and if the risk is artificial/man-made or natural.
A presentation followed from Nicola Harries, CL:AIRE (contaminated land: applications in real environments), on their UK sustainable remediation meeting. The meeting brought together attendees from UK government, regulators, industry, environmental consultants, technology vendors, contractors, other European organizations, NGOs, and academia to come up with success criteria for judging sustainability in remediation. They identified four areas for further research: literature survey (output: policy development, metrics), cost-benefit analysis framework, existing tools outside industry (e.g., life-cycle analysis), and existing tools inside industry (e.g., those developed by DuPont, Shell, etc.).
Charles Iceland, World Resources Institute, gave a presentation on their corporate ecosystem services review (ESR). His group rightly asserts that businesses are heavily dependent on ecosystem services: they both contribute to ecosystem change and use ecosystem services. WRI is partnering with Meridian Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development to develop the corporate ESR methodology, which is being “road-tested” by DuPont, BC Hydro, Monsanto, Rio Tinto, and others.
Dan Watts, NJIT, presented on the challenges of quantifying the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere. This seems like it should be a very simple question, but it has a very complex answer. The answer lies in the balance between additions (deforestation, burning of fossil fuels) and deletions (absorption by atmosphere and oceans), which equals the amount absorbed on land. This question needs to be answered in order to determine how and when we can stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels, if for only the reason that CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level continue to rise long after emissions are reduced.
Frank Evans, National Grid, gave a presentation on the use of metrics to make better sustainable remediation decisions. National Grid is a global utility company, operating in the UK and US. It has different drivers for remediation of surplus and operational land, but four common general objectives of sustainable remediation: social progress, environmental protection, prudent use of natural resources, and maintaining high and stable economic growth and employment.
Carlos Pachon from EPA, OSWER (his specific group runs Clu-In and Tech Direct), presented preliminary "flash" findings from their initial analytical approach to energy and carbon footprint for site cleanup treatment technologies in the Superfund remedial program. Their working definition of “green remediation” is the practice of considering the environmental effects of a remediation strategy early in the process and incorporating options to maximize the net environmental benefit of the cleanup action. Their preliminary goal is to foster the adoption of greener remediation practices across cleanup programs by benchmarking the state of the practice, identifying opportunities for improvement at cleanups, capacity-building and networking practitioners, and creating enabling mechanisms. So far they have found that pump-and-treat results in by far the highest energy use and carbon emissions (per project and per year and projected into the future), e.g., 402M vs. 32M kWh energy use per project and 275K vs. 16K tons of carbon emissions per year for P&T vs. multiphase extraction, respectively.
The final presentation of the day came from Dave Ellis, DuPont, which was a survey of several case studies on the use of sustainability metrics at their sites.
We finished the day with a question for the group: What are the metrics issues that most concern you?
Answers included:
- How to evaluate new factors (e.g., recycled concrete)
- The detail, implementability, and consistency of metrics
- The scale of our impact (from remediation) vs. other impacts
- Over-rating or over-valuing the sustainability criterion in remedy decisions
- How to assign value to time
- What equivalent to assign to different metrics when screening technologies or selecting remediation options
Seem like a lot to cover in one day? It was! But, to borrow a term from Ray Anderson, we've only just begun our ascent of Mt. Sustainability. We've got an exciting journey ahead of us.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
CARB Chair Conflicted?
California Air Resources Board chair owns stocks in 13 energy firms
Matthew Yi, SF Chronicle, August 18, 2007
The new chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board owns stocks in several oil, coal and utility firms, some of which are likely to be affected by rules the agency implements as part of the state's groundbreaking law to fight global warming, The Chronicle has learned. The air board is expected to consider wide-ranging regulations that will affect what kind of fuel motorists pump into their vehicles and help dictate what sources of energy utility companies can use to generate electricity.
Mary Nichols' stock holdings include shares in oil giants Chevron Corp., BP PLC, and Royal Dutch Shell, a stake in a Bermuda tanker company that transports crude oil, the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corp., and utilities including Edison International, whose subsidiary, Southern California Edison, serves most of the Southern California electricity market.
In total, she and her husband, John Daum, an attorney who represents Exxon in the ongoing Exxon Valdez oil-spill case, have a financial stake in 13 energy-related firms in a diversified stock portfolio that contains 84 companies, according to statements she filed on Tuesday with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
Nichols is highly regarded by some in the environmental community as a longtime environmental lawyer who served on the air board three decades ago under then-Gov. Jerry Brown.
Read the complete story at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/18/MNGBRKMAO.DTL
UPDATE: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/27/BAQNSEO5A.DTL (SFGate, September 27, 2007)
Matthew Yi, SF Chronicle, August 18, 2007
The new chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board owns stocks in several oil, coal and utility firms, some of which are likely to be affected by rules the agency implements as part of the state's groundbreaking law to fight global warming, The Chronicle has learned. The air board is expected to consider wide-ranging regulations that will affect what kind of fuel motorists pump into their vehicles and help dictate what sources of energy utility companies can use to generate electricity.
Mary Nichols' stock holdings include shares in oil giants Chevron Corp., BP PLC, and Royal Dutch Shell, a stake in a Bermuda tanker company that transports crude oil, the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corp., and utilities including Edison International, whose subsidiary, Southern California Edison, serves most of the Southern California electricity market.
In total, she and her husband, John Daum, an attorney who represents Exxon in the ongoing Exxon Valdez oil-spill case, have a financial stake in 13 energy-related firms in a diversified stock portfolio that contains 84 companies, according to statements she filed on Tuesday with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
Nichols is highly regarded by some in the environmental community as a longtime environmental lawyer who served on the air board three decades ago under then-Gov. Jerry Brown.
Read the complete story at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/18/MNGBRKMAO.DTL
UPDATE: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/27/BAQNSEO5A.DTL (SFGate, September 27, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)