(1) Against Federal Reclassification of Nuclear as "Green Power" Solution to Global Warming? (2) The Community Choice Question (3) A Proposal; Stop All Rezoning of Agricultural and Wild Lands for any commercial or residential construction.

Against Federal Reclassification of Nuclear Power as Green"

No Nuclear Reactors For Global Climate Change:
Nuclear Energy Should Not Receive Renewable Energy Credits (Public Citizen, September 2000)

Cut Paste and Answer Any of these three petitions onto an email by clicking here: Paul Fenn, Local Power.

The nuclear power industry is trying to gain access to yet another subsidy and the U.S. is posed to support them in upcoming international negotiations. By falsely claiming that nuclear power is needed to address global climate change, the industry hopes to construct and operate new reactors all over the world. The industry wants to use a pollution trading credit scheme in the current Kyoto climate change agreement to offset nuclear energy's oppressive construction costs. The Clinton/Gore administration is planning to support use of pollution credits to nuclear energy based on the same formula used to give renewable energy credits. This policy would give nuclear energy status equal to sustainable energy under the energy credit plan in the Kyoto agreement.

If You want to lobby the government directly, CALL OR EMAIL officials below. Demand the Clinton/Gore administration adopt the following positions:

* Nuclear power is not sustainable and is not the solution to global climate change; energy efficiency and sustainable energy are.

* Any further subsidy to the nuclear industry will thwart sustainable technologies and ultimately hurt our efforts to address global climate change.

* Nuclear power must be specifically excluded from the CDM (clean development mechanism) of the Kyoto agreement and given no credits.

Also, tell the Clinton/Gore administration many "developing" nations don't want nuclear power and their citizens do want a voice

We must not spread nuclear terror by allowing financially and/or politically fragile nations to be burdened with nuclear waste, pollution and weapons proliferation risk as many countries (including the US) currently are. All nations deserve better. We MUST reduce greenhouse gases domestically, not get false "credit" for reductions by selling any nation dirty nuclear reactors. The U.S. should learn from our own horrible mistakes with nuclear energy and not allow the nuclear industry to abuse other nations with their failed technology-no nuclear power reactor order has been placed in the U.S. since 1973. We have yet to find a way to safely store the first cupful of radioactive waste produced in the U.S. on April 24, 1942.

We must tell the Clinton/Gore administration that it is unacceptable to support the nuclear industry in trying to get more undeserved investment and legitimacy, even while ratepayers in the United States are bailing out nuclear reactors to the tune of $500 billion dollars. A boost to the nuclear industry could also mean more nuclear reactors will be built in the US, after many years of stagnation and rate-payer robbery.

Contact the following U.S. officials before and during climate change meeting in Lyon which commences on September 4. Further alerts and updates will be coming.

Mr. David Gardiner, Executive Director,
White House Climate Change Task Force,
Phone: 202-395-2343, Fax: 202-395-2311;
email: David_Gardiner@ceq.eop.gov

Mr. Frank Loy; Under Secretary for Global Affairs;
Phone: 202-647-8877; Fax: 202-647-0753
email: mitchelllm@state.gov

Mr. Roger Ballentine; Deputy Assistant to the President on Environmental Issues;
Phone: 202-456-1782; Fax 202-456-1736;
email: rballe ntine@who.eop.gov

BACKGROUND (Summary: This message initiated by Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program

Through the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement created to address climate change, the nuclear industry hopes to get credit (to offset construction costs) for something it cannot deliver: clean, environmentally friendly, non-polluting, energy production. End of Anti- "Nuclear Reclassification Scheme" Petition.

....................................

2. Alternative to Electric Deregulation and the "Green Consumer": "Community Choice." (Local Power, September, 2000)

The San Diego rate shock after electric deregulation has brought on calls for an alternative to the "Consumer Choice" dereg law passed here in 1996. Following laws passed in Massachusetts (1997) and Ohio (1999) there are proposals from San Franisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and other cities as well as consumer group TURN that communities be allowed Community Choice of power supply, that their city governments should be allowed to negotiate on our behalf for bulk electricity supply, in effect treating power companies the same as cable tv or trash collection (rather than leaving it to the private sector entirely). For or Against?

2. Get Radical on Suburban Sprawl: Freeze Development on Virgin Farm- and Wild Lands. It has been proposed in Contra Costa County, CA that there be a statewide law banning any further development on virgin lands in California (there is a large clickable image expressing this sentiment below). This would take effect immediately, and all new development would be focused on already developed urban areas, preferably in poor neighborhoods. For or Against?

Of course all comments are welcome, even without participating.

Otherwise, please indicate the following on your answer in email form by clicking on Paul Fenn's name: Paul Fenn

First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
County of voting registry:
City of voting registry
Registered to Vote?
If you support
this measure as a business owner too, and where:

Email Address if you want notification on the result:
Today's Date:

This goes to:
Paul Fenn
4281 Piedmont Avenue
Oakland, California 94611
(510) 451 1727

All Text and Images Copyright (c) 2000 by Local Power