AustinAction Sanity Island

Belterra is a master planned development in the Texas Hill Country that plans to pump their treated sewage into Bear Creek, which feeds the Barton Springs portion of the Edwards Aquifer.

California-based Makar Properties has already built about 735 homes at Belterra. They plan to have 2,000 before they’re done. They just don’t know what to do with all the poop. So, their solution is to let it drain into the Texas Hill Country creek. And, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality seems set to approve a permit that will allow them to do this. This would be the first time a permit has ever been issued to allow discharging sewage into a creek over the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer.

Downstream neighbors aren’t looking forward to well water contamination and algae blooms that will threaten the health of Bear Creek. Belterra could discharge 350,000 gallons of effluent a day. But Belterra says it will be safe enough for fishing and swimming.

There’s a new website - Smellterra - to point out just how ridiculous this whole situation is.

Reflections and Recipes

My June/July 08 Sierra Club conservation article kicked-off a commitment- To share the discoveries I have made eating from a vegetarian menu. My journey started out of curiosity, then evolved as a life long experiment on how it would impact my health, and then my spirit. There is now too, overwhelming evidence concerning the benefits to the planet. So I want to encourage you to check out the recipes that we post, try them out, and slowly build a repertoire of menus that allow you to reduce your meat consumption. Your colon will thank you, and so will the planet.

Ideally, I’d like to see this space help us all share recipes, new ideas, and information. My best hope for this is that it provides a conduit for your thoughts and discoveries too so we are all using this space to share and enrich each others daily lives.

Most of my recipes are simple, though a few demand some time in preparation. Many early recipes started out as your basic “Betty Crocker” and Mom’s recipes that I would convert to satisfy the “comfort food” craving we all get from time to time. I think this is an important strategy in the beginning. It will build confidence and understanding by only tweaking one part of a familiar recipe. It also might ignite the creative side of your soul. Starting with what you know will help you to build the cornerstone from which to start your exploration into uncharted ingredients and combinations. Think of it as a new adventure or exploration. Also I will usually follow a recipe the first time to understand the starting point and then begin to vary it from there.

Although I have been cooking this way for a couple of decades now, it is only recently I’ve begun to explore the crazy world of tofu and seitan or wheat meat. I grew up in a meat and potatoes household with bbq every weekend. It has taken me a while to begin to actively explore ways to make a meal without the Boca/Morning Star options (processed textured vegetable protein/soy). That is why I am encouraging readers to contribute…. because I am a baby cook. Also I am a picky eater…no cheese, mushrooms, whole eggs, stuff most people LOVE… so the success of this space may rely on your contribution of food ingredients that I just cannot honestly suggest are yummy.

I will be including LOTS of side dishes that can be cooked with meat centered dishes too. I hope them to be yummy enticements for you carnivores to get comfortable in trying more entree centered vegetarian recipes.

I thought I would start with my favorite rice recipe. It is invaluable in that it is simple and exquisite. It is also versatile in that it can be prepared with Mexican or Asian meals. It is lovely to eat but equally lovely to cook as the smells rise up from the pan and greet you in a way you may not have experienced before….

Orange Cilantro Rice
from “1001 Low-Fat Vegetarian Recipes” by Sue Spitler
6 side-dish servings (about 2/3 cup each)
(D:) = Donna’s substitutions/modifications

vegetable spray (D: 1 Tbsp olive oil)
1/2 cup sliced green onions and tops
1 cup long grain rice
zest of 1 small orange, grated (D: zest from a lime)
2 1/4 cups water
2 Tbsp finely chopped cilantro (D: more cilantro because I love cilantro)
salt and pepper to taste

1) In medium saucepan, heat olive oil over medium heat until hot. Saute onions until tender, 3-5 minutes. Add rice and orange zest to saucepan; cook over medium heat until rice is lightly browned, stirring frequently. (It states 2-3 minutes but I tend to let it go a bit longer.)
2) Add water to saucepan and heat to boiling; reduce heat and simmer, covered, until rice is tender, 20-25 minutes. Remove from heat and let sit covered another 10 minutes. Then gently fold in cilantro; season to taste with salt and pepper.

My notes: Adding the zest was the “exquisite experience” for me. And instead of orange I use the zest from a lime. You should try with each to find your favorite. I would also encourage buying as much organic produce as you can afford and thoroughly wash everything before you begin preparation. This is a good general note but also specifically with the use of citrus rinds because of possible pesticide use and we are eating the peel, not peeling and casting away.

You’ll want to consider getting a zester. If you don’t have one, carefully cut the skin from the fruit and avoid cutting into the white pith underneath (it’s bitter), then finely mince it. I encourage you to get one as it makes the cooking process more enjoyable with the right tools. For a quick Asian meal I pair this recipe with some frozen vegetable potstickers from the freezer section and bake them with a little oil (the bag suggests deep frying or boiling) or with more time a prepared stir fry. For Mexican, yummy but simple chalupas or tacos. Remember this recipe and we’ll pair it with these and other entrees in future articles.

I’ve been feeling pretty depressed. You too? If you are even halfway paying attention to the changes occurring around the planet it is just downright tough not to curl up in a fetal position about it all. What’s worse is so many are responding to our “situation” with outright rejection or more simply, closing their eyes and ears to it all…a more passive form of denial. Then the rest of us waver between feeling good about recycling to numb and paralyzed because we can’t see how that is going to make a difference. It’s just overwhelming.

A Sign Post
Then I got an email, an Evite actually, to attend a symposium developed by the Pachamama Alliance called “Awakening the Dreamer, Changing the Dream”. I wasn’t sure….3 1/2 hours of kumbaya wasn’t going to make me feel better..in fact it would probably make me mad…I needed something REAL, something to kick start me again, and give me some hope.

I went, looking for “next steps” and found some- bridge building and making connections. I have some Hope.

There were a few little kumbaya moments…but they were subtle, much like the work that is currently being done by over 1 million groups around the planet to improve the state of the environment, social justice, and the human spirit. Having evolved relatively independently, these three fronts of protection for our human experience are now realized as interconnected and aggressive bridge building is taking place. The work is done largely under the radar with no central coordination or leadership. This large social movement seems an intuitive response, like antibodies springing into action against infection. It functions most successfully at the grassroots level, all over the planet, and is gaining momentum. Its sum total amounts to millions of small, individual steps and it is making a difference. You are likely already contributing to this energy.

What follows are useful insights and tools to keep you connected and inspired. Ideally, they will enable you to step up your levels of contributed energy towards positively changing our relationship with the planet. Additionally, you help create a wonderful feedback loop for yourself that self perpetuates and provides positive energy back to you through perceivable differences being made.

The New Dream- http://awakeningthedreamer.org
“The Old Dream is dying. Its demise becomes inevitable as we discover the devastation we’ve caused to our own planet home, as we count the rising cost of our inhumanity to each other and as we see how our current way of living fails to deliver lasting happiness. All of these are the inevitable conclusions of an old dream rooted in acquisition, consumption and putting personal gain above communal good.

The New Dream is emerging! It’s community, collaboration; it’s life-enhancing and earth-honoring; it’s together and for our grand-children, rather than Supersize me Now! So we’re seeing the largest social movement of all time, millions of people and organizations working for environmental sustainability, social justice and spiritual fulfillment, three facets of a new dream for humanity and planet Earth.”

A Beneficial Consideration…
Here is an inspiring exercise: Take a few minutes to create and ponder this scenario…In the future, you are sitting in a circle with your grandchildren or younger generations and they are asking you, “What did you do?”

Close your eyes and imagine the situation- small children crawling on you and into your lap, looking up to you for your response that is part of the story about the creation of their current world. First, how do you envision “their current world”? This is important- Choose the beautiful outcome. Now, what did you do in contribution to achieve their beautiful existence? This isn’t meant as a scorecard. This is meant to focus your mind on a goal, create a strategy of many small steps, give you courage and be infectious to encourage others. Hold that beautiful outcome in your mind despite the overwhelming odds. Know, this is how all great societal change happens. And a change will happen. Our work is to make it a beautiful one.

The Invitation to Engagement
Design practices for yourself that have you “in action”- consistent with creating a sustainable, fulfilling and just human presence on Earth as the guiding principle of our time. The name of the game is: Engage. Small steps are good. Big steps are good. Have it be a practice that delights, satisfies, and inspires you.

Daily Practices-
My Relationship with Earth/Environmental Sustainability
• Identify habits in the way I live that are unsustainable for me or the earth, that I intend to do something about.
• Eat less ______________________________? Eat more _______________________________?
• Carpool, bicycle, take public transportation or walk ____times each week in lieu of driving my own internal combustion vehicle
• Begin to investigate “one-earth” methods of transportation, heating, & refrigeration at home and at work
• Purchase only items whose packaging, ingredients, and methods of production are sustainable and support life (This will
require research!)
• Spend some aware moments outdoors, in nature every single day
• Plant a tree, a garden in your yard, on your balcony, in a public space and care for it.
• Clean up a beach, trail, field, path, roadway
• Pay attention to and track the natural cycles of the moon, sun and it’s light, stars, plants, and animals
My Relationship with Others/Community/Social Justice
• Regularly initiate conversations about a sustainable, socially just and just human presence on the planet with friends,
family, and the world at large
• Contact your local elementary school and investigate opportunities to volunteer (story reading program)
• Go online and investigate 10 “civil society” groups and/or initiatives that intrigue you and join at least one
• Investigate the current topics in our local community with regard to politics and environmental/social issues
• Write/email letters to:
• Buy only what you need (food, medicine) for a specific time period. Invite others to participate
• Notice the times when society/the culture relates to you primarily as a consumer (Do you remember when we were
identified as citizens, not consumers, by our government and the media?)
• Make a microloan to a third world entrepreneur and establish an e-mail relationship with him/her on kiva.org
• Take a workshop on unlearning racism
• Set aside a percentage of your monthly income to support organizations working for social justice
• Open yourself, educate yourself about privilege/oppression
• Stay connected
My Relationship with Self/Spiritual Fulfillment
• Designate a regular daily spiritual practice- meditation/yoga/prayer/other
• Build a fort with blankets
• Investigate and watch for examples of interconnectedness everywhere
• Consider and pay attention to dreams, daydreams and visions as possible messages or sign posts. Let the wisdom of Earth
inform and speak through you
• Manage your conversations- internal and external to be one of possibility and inspiration to yourself and others
• Be compassionate and forgiving with yourself, even when you don’t do everything you think you should
• AS A RADICAL ACT: want less, buy less, use less
• Do nothing for one minute
• Consciously read, listen to, watch and engage with things and individuals that empower, uplift, and/or have you be a more
effective agent for Changing the Dream and waking us out of our current trance/reality
• Read one page of something that inspires you each morning or evening
• Explore what is “enough” for yourself
These practices are meant to create an opening in our habitual way of going through life. They are only guidelines, beacon lights, not sledgehammers. Compassion begins at home. When you notice you have gone to sleep, let go of the self- judgement, awaken, and renew your practice. And find partner(s) to support you in your practice.

Let me know if you are interested in having Sierra Club host an “Awakening the Dreamer Changing the Dream” symposium and I will commit to making this happen.

I have been asked about my diet choice over the years. When I first started down this path (in my 20’s), I was defensive and could rattle off a hundred “facts” about why it was the wise choice. My family and coworkers thought I was a little crazy and were worried about me succumbing to malnutrition. I had several vegetarian cookbooks given to me as Christmas presents to make sure I was “eating right”. More than 20 years have passed now and my response has mellowed. “Oh, there are lots of good reasons…” has been my typical reply, but in the last year or so, I’ve noticed the frequency of the question has increased. My simple response seems less and less satisfying to me.

So lately I’ve been more introspective about the choice I made so long ago. Partly because of the frequency and real interest that seems more than just mere curiosity, partly because there is so much scientific information that exists now outlining the environmental and health benefits of a vegetable based diet, but also because my husband and I may start a family by adopting. Food is a central issue for kids, really all of us, and this is a family value we’ve come to accept as very important and central to who we are as human beings. We’ve arrived at a solid understanding that we cannot compromise this value. I’ve had to ask myself, why this is?

College of course
…in an intro Philosophy class with writing component and a rasta kind of hippie friend that was such a uniquely lovely vegetarian person, I became, well curious…AND I love animals. Have you ever just sat and watched the social behavior of cattle in a pasture?…it is truly fascinating, but I digress…

Anyway, I still have a paper I wrote on my chosen topic of vegetarianism. I dug it out to rediscover what it was that first began to inform my choice. With so much documented information available now concerning environmental and health benefit reasons, providing a different avenue of thought seemed more constructive and potentially compelling as unique and unusual information. I wanted to share my philosophical underpinnings with you today and maybe recipes in future articles if interest is revealed by you as readers.

“It is easy to judge the heart of a man from how he treats animals” Kant

Vegetarianism is an ancient ideal. Its beginnings can be found in the ancient story or myth of the “golden age”. Plato believed the period exemplified the best of humanity, the only possible age where “complete peace and moral progress” could have existed. In the Statesman, he describes that men living in this period were vegetarian and the time was one in which fruit trees sprang up with no cultivation, men slept on soft beds of grass, and they conversed with the animals, “seeking to learn what they could about the special faculties human beings lacked”.

Many ancient philosophers looked to this age as epitomizing the ideal circumstance. It served as the highest goal to be strived for. Dowbrowski, in The Philosophy of Vegetarianism, initiates us to the idea that the story of the “golden age” is the true basis for ancient vegetarianism. Many believe the Greeks were vegetarian because of their belief in transmigration of souls, but the philosophical father of vegetarianism, Pythagoras, formulated the ideals of his time into a philosophical foundation based on religious beliefs (including transmigration), health reasons, and ethical considerations.

Dicaerchus, who denied immortality and the existence of the soul, was fascinated with vegetarianism based on ethical considerations. Dicaerchus linked animal eating with war and asserted that vegetarian man is superior because he believes it is “morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on a being that can experience pain”.

Plato was also believed to be vegetarian. Dowbrowski cites passages in Republic in which Socrates, upon suggesting the idea of a republic, outlines the necessity of providing food for his creation and lists a detailed optimum diet which omits meat. The foods listed are described as “foods of health and peace”. A second text, Laws, contains a passage in which “Clinias states, with no objections from Plato, that vegetarianism is a widely current and highly credible tradition”. Finally there is Epinomis. The legend of these men has it that they put a check on the devouring of flesh, and absolutely condemned the consumption of some animals. Plato bestows on their rule a blessing of the first order… he believed such a diet does show an attempt to become the best person one can become… the practice being important to the life of one seeking understanding.

Aristotle was less sympathetic. In Politics, he “makes it clear that the rule of the mind over the passionate element is natural in man, and the equality of the two or the rule of the inferior is harmful”. He continues with a similar comparison between man and animal, concluding that even tame animals need the rule of man in order to survive. When we apply the same principles to human relations his theses further disintegrates. He believed the male to be superior to the female and extended this idea of natural rule and superiority to all mankind. “When there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their bodies, and who can do nothing better), the lower sorts are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master…whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different”.

A student of Aristotle, Theophrastus, sifted through his teacher’s complicated theories on animals to deduce vegetarianism as a conclusion. He believed that the sentiency of animals placed restraints on our enslavement of them. Known as the father of ecology, “his practice of vegetarianism was likely the result of his studies of plants, the most extensive in antiquity. More than any Greek philosopher, he understood the differences between plants and animals, not the least of which was the inability of the former to experience pain”.

Plutarch was the first Greek writer to advocate vegetarianism on grounds of universal benevolence. His thought experiment is intended to be instructive: “if you want to eat flesh, kill the animal yourself without the aid of a weapon, as lions do, who kill and eat at once”.

Thus ancient vegetarianism consists of several basic arguments: 1) a mythological belief in a past vegetarian golden age; 2) faith in transmigration- led them to spare animals in the belief that animals were, or would become human beings; 3) concern that flesh eating was injurious to health of either body or soul; 4) concern for animals themselves- in that we can lead healthy lives eating vegetables and should not deprive life of an animal- eating meat is cruel and ought to be avoided.

Dowbroski believed the second argument received undue emphasis as the leading argument for vegetarianism. He believes the primary concern is not one of religion or morality but one based on arete or personal excellence. “It is the striving to become the best human being one can become that differentiates Greek vegetarianism from its contemporary counterpart, not the primitive belief in transmigration or the like, whose importance has been overemphasized by several commentators”. This misperception coupled with some of Aristotle’s views may have made the dietary practice susceptible to criticism by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Subsequently, vegetarianism faltered in the west while in the east it is over two millennia old in practice.

“The Judeo-Christian tradition, even for a sophisticated thinker like St. Thomas, has largely been speciest. Just as slavery, racism, and sexism were once accepted even in the most intelligent of Christian circles, by then unmasked for their injustices that they are, so might the same be done for speciesism”. The theological tendency to exalt the human animal above all other animals in a role of dominance and control runs counter to the idea of agape or unconditional love. A view that seems more consistent with Christian ideals would be one of stewardship. Debrowski reasons this to be humanities role- the price we pay for having superior reason, compassion, and language. He states this stewardship as our duty and notes that we are capable of rejecting our duties or choosing not to be compassionate.

So perhaps this idea of personal excellence is the purest essence of the idea of vegetarianism. It is compatible with western religions, where transmigration of soul was not. Hopefully too, we as a species have overcome our insecurities and no longer suffer the need to denigrate non-human animals. As the human population continues to put pressure on food resources, the inefficiency of meat production will become prohibitive to all but the most wealthy. I believe we are currently witnessing the resurgence of vegetarianism as part of our natural evolutionary awareness. It will take hold, this time, in the west out of necessity. Our current culture of meat eating in the amounts that we do, in particular in the United States, is a fairly recent phenomenon. The silver lining that is found among the problems of overpopulation, food and energy shortages, and environmental concerns is that we are being forced to reevaluate our place in this world and its impact.

“I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came into contact with the more civilized.”
Henry David Thoreau- American 19th century vegetarian

Not just some passing fad…

So that was a bit thick to take in, I know…and it was written for school many years ago. But isn’t it fascinating to know how far back this thought exists in our human strivings to understand the who and why of our existence? I hope some of you made it to the end of this piece and found some useful bit that helps move you toward leaving a smaller footprint during your stay on the planet. And please consider doing additional research for more current considerations for this diet choice.

And from another totally different angle, check out this funny (and honest- I can totally relate) article on vegetarianism at www.slate.com/id/2190872 for an article by Taylor Clark titled “I may be a vegetarian, but I still love the smell of bacon”.

This question is quickly creeping on us. If you think nuclear energy is the way to solve our energy problems then you might be encouraged. But if you have concerns about how “clean” or safe this resource is then you better sit up and take notice. Our City is considering investing in more nuclear energy…again.

WHO WE ARE
How do we express our values? The answer is: By the choices we make. I ask Austin and our Council and Mayor: Do we want Austin to be a Leader and the Renewable Energy Capital of the World or do we want to express an acceptance of nuclear as a viable safe energy resource? What is Austin going to be about?

Some of you probably still remember the pitched battles in the early 70’s over the nuclear question. In 1972, Austin voted to reject the South Texas Nuclear Project. But the following winter and spring brought gas shortages and the Arab oil embargo, and by fall the Austin public became more open to “fuel diversification”. In mid 1973 San Antonio signed on as a partner in the South Texas Nuclear project. Austin joined in December later that same year with a narrow majority of 700 votes. Today, since Austin has an interest in the STNP there is a contractual obligation to offer Austin the option to participate. San Antonio has signed on as a partner. The City of Austin staff and Council are now working to consider whether we should follow suit once again.

WHO WOULD BE OUR PARTNER?
NRG Energy, Inc., who currently holds a 44% share in the South Texas Nuclear Project climbed out of bankruptcy in 2003 and last year paid $2 million to settle allegations of manipulating natural gas markets. Recently they’ve agreed to pay half a million to settle allegations of intentionally misleading New England regulators. Is this a company we want to partner with?

WHAT STNP IS AND THE MONETARY COSTS
The South Texas Nuclear project, located about 90 miles southwest of Houston near Bay City, was Texas’ first nuclear power plant. It began construction in 1976 with an original budget estimate of $964,000,000. The project’s two units became operational in 1988 and the second in 1989 at an actual cost of $5.6 billion. That is 12 years to become operational (8 years later than scheduled) and almost 6X over budget. Wall Street financial analysts anticipate new nuclear reactors will cost billions more. The current nuclear proposal is estimated to cost $6.6-$8.6 billion. NRG is telling Austin it will build the new nukes for about the same price as the 1989 South Texas Nuclear Project. Is anyone able to build at the same price they could 25 years ago? Has the price of steel and concrete gone down?

In 1989, the plant was completed at a cost of $2,240/Kilowatt ($5.6 billion/2500MW). The time frame for this new one has an estimated start of construction date of 2010 with anticipation of becoming operational by 2014. With the original STNP taking 12 years to complete it is reasonable to suggest the 2014 date might be optimistic.

In 2014, the low cost will be $2,444/Kilowatt ($6.6 billion/2700 MW). Moody’s Corporate Finance Estimate is $16.2 billion not $6.6 billion. I encourage you to do the math from our historical experience to explore what the costs may really conceivably be.

Basically, nuclear energy is expensive. It isn’t self supporting or sustainable. It requires huge subsidies granted through the 2005 Energy bill and the extension of the 1957 Price-Anderson Act. These pieces of legislation relieve the industry from bearing the full cost of insurance for construction delays allowing them to draw out construction with no penalty except to the taxpayer who has to foot the bill for cost overruns. They enjoy government backed loan guarantees at much lower rates than other larger utilities when making risky investments. Also, because the insurance companies aren’t willing to bear all the risk in case of nuclear accident, the nuclear industry is subsidized on this too by limiting how much insurance they have to carry and capping their total liability. Sweet deal huh?

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY SUSTAINABLE?
Isn’t nuclear energy a cleaner option than coal in the face of global warming? I recently heard this comparison: It’s like quitting smoking and taking up crack.

A report from the Energy Watch Group states that uranium reserves will be exhausted by 2030, indicating the loss of future expansion and replacement of aging reactors as a reliable source of energy. Refer to www.energywatchgroup.org for their Uranium Report.

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CLEAN?
Nuclear Energy is dirty from start to finish. Uranium mining and processing results in radioactive contamination of the environment and poses a threat to public safety in its use, transport, and storage. Groundwater is contaminated.

And the end process of how to deal with the waste remains unresolved after 50 years of trying. At existing storage facilities there are outstanding safety issues that exist, such as water seepage and cask corrosion, and limited existing storage capacity. New processes to reduce toxicity are extremely expensive and dangerous and still do not eliminate the need for eventual permanent repository that must be kept secure and intact for hundreds of thousands of years. So that is the bad part about the start and finish. Now lets look at the in between…

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY SAFE?
The South Texas Nuclear Project was fined and forced to shut down both of its units in 1993 after investigations by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified various violations. STNP was not allowed to become operational again until 14 months later. Matthew Wald, a New York Times reporter, wrote about cooling water leakages through two penetrations where instruments were inserted into the core in 2003.

Since then, there are some indications that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn’t properly serving its mission. A report from the General Accounting Office in 2004 criticized the NRC for not discovering severe problems at a nuclear reactor vessel in Ohio. Earlier in 2001 the NRC had allowed a delay in safety inspection at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant. This delay resulted in the creation of the fifth ranked most dangerous incident since 1979. It was discovered that boric acid had eaten almost all the way through the 6 1/2” thick reactor pressure valve head with only 3/8” thickness left of the shell as described in a NRC report on the incident. On top of safety concerns, the utility had to spend an additional $600 million in repairs and upgrades and in 2005 faced additional imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $5,450,000 for their multiple violations.

Additionally, an NRC Office of Inspector General report revealed many employees were concerned that the NRC “was becoming influence by private industry and its power to regulate is diminishing”.

Then there is Chernobyl. It was certainly catastrophic to the immediate community surrounding the plant but winds carried the radioactivity away and beyond. The Russian government admitted the Chernobyl disaster only after Swedish instruments detected radioactive fall-out from the explosion. And surrounding countries experienced spikes of various types of cancer and genetic mutations in children later born to exposed parents. A Swedish website Chernobyl.info states, “There is consensus that at least 1800 children and adolescents in the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus have contracted cancer of the thyroid because of the reactor disaster. It is feared that the number of thyroid cancer cases among people who were children and adolescents when the accident happened will reach 8000 in coming decades.” With some predictions reaching upward to 100,000. There are also indications of increased incidences of breast cancer and other tumors. The number of cases has doubled in one of the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Gomel. 


IS NUCLEAR ENERGY SECURE?
Despite 9/11, the 103 operating reactors around the country remain unprepared for attack. Plants are warned months in advance of mock terrorist attacks allowing them to prepare for them. These tests are run every three years instead of annually, and almost half the plants tested between 1999-2001 failed. Also none of the existing plants were designed to take impacts from airplane crashes and new plant designs are not being adapted for this either.

In 2006 the Union of Concerned Scientists reported numerous security weaknesses at the South Texas Nuclear Project:

• Non-functioning radios and degraded bridge floors inhibit the performance of security personnel during an attack. New security posts were installed hastily and do not provide adequate protection from the elements. Excessive heat, flooding, or cold can impair officers’ ability to defend the nuclear plant.
• The training for vehicle checks is inadequate. Security personnel have to locate a hidden dummy pipe bomb on a vehicle but are not trained to search for plastic explosives or other devices.
• Safety conscious work environment: Security officers who raise safety concerns to Wackenhut, STP, or the NRC are subject to retaliation by management. A December 30, 2005 NRC report stated: “Attempts to resolve several issues with Wackenhut management has been met with hostility and has created a chilled work environment”.

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY EFFICIENT?
The mining and enrichment of uranium, the construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of nuclear reactors produce enormous fossil fuel emissions estimated to be about 20%-30% with high-grade uranium and with low-grade uranium more than what a gas plant would produce. Plants also require lots of cool water to operate at safe temperatures. The availability of cool water is becoming more scarce. Nuclear plants in France had to shut down during the summer heat waves in 2003 and 2006 because the cooling water was too hot. Nuclear plants will have to go off-line if the projected increase in global temperatures is accurate, reducing supply and driving up the price of electricity. Does this seem like a viable, reliable, sustainable solution?

BETTER SOLUTIONS
Amory Lovins told Austin City Council in 1986 “It’s cheaper to save electricity than make it” and the City of Austin works hard to capture those efficiencies. But we must work harder if we are to avoid this false, short term and dangerous nuclear proposal as a solution to our energy needs. Do we choose to invest in nuclear power or commit to major financial investments into making alternative renewable sources more plentiful, reliable, and realistic?

Strategies we are only beginning to explore include industrial cogeneration from other regions in Texas, onsite cogeneration at local buildings similar to the City’s power plant at Dell Children’s Hospital, wind power with compressed air energy storage, and zero-energy buildings. These in addition to our continued aggressive strategy toward capitalizing on capturing efficiencies and institution of demand management measures. The obstacles presented by any of these strategies is more surmountable than those presented by nuclear.

WHAT YOU CAN DO
Install efficiency and PVs in your home and businesses. Demand more GreenChoice opportunities and buy them from Austin Energy when they become available. Get involved with the City’s Resource Management Commission and Electric Utility Commission. Go to one of their Citizen’s Communications and voice your concerns. If you have money to invest, invest in alternative energy to support their development.

Call, email, or write City Council Members and the Mayor if you don’t want to see your tax dollars invested in nuclear power. Encourage them to continue investing in renewable energy strategies and conservation. Attend Citizen Communications meetings by registering at Citizens.Communications@ci.austin.tx.us or by phone at 974-2210 to learn when and where these meetings occur and speak up. These slots usually fill up within half an hour of when registration opens so sign up early. You can contact the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, either Donna Hoffman or Cyrus Reed at 477-1155 if you would like to volunteer to help them with the Nuke Free Texas campaign.

We need to begin making the hard choices we must to be moral. And we must responsibly serve future generations. When does the “me” mentality end? When do we begin to temper our expectation of being completely insulated from the natural cycles of the seasons? When do we begin to understand that even if we can afford to pay for higher utility bills, there are added costs beyond what we immediately experience in our wallets.

Austin can choose to say no to nuclear as an energy answer for Austin. It may not be an easy answer but it is the right answer

In November 1981, Austin voters directed the City Council to sell it’s 16 percent interest in the STNP.  No buyer was found.  
Should our City Council be obligated to honor that vote today and finally find a buyer instead of considering investing more in nuclear power?  

This article was written and published in the Jan/Feb edition of the Austin Sierra Club newsletter.

I received the following email from a member of the ASPCA in Austin regarding the use of the AustinAction.org website for the petition to “Stop the Dead End Shelter”. My response follows.

I am concerned that you are promoting the animal shelter issue with one very limited perspective. The ASPCA launched ASPCA Mission: Orange in Austin in January 2007 with the goal of increasing the animal save rate in Austin. We are partnered with the agencies in Austin that are actually doing the work to save animal lives, every day, every year, Animal Trustees of Austin; Austin Humane Society; EmanciPET; and Town Lake Animal Center. The ASPCA has committed five, National Outreach, experienced staff and $600,000 to this project. We are in favor of the move of the city shelter to the new location, which by the way is not exactly an out of the way industrial location. As a matter of fact one of our partners, that is doing work to save animals, EmanciPET, is located at this site.

In a national survey of other government animal shelters that have moved to similar locations the results were a minimum of a 20% increase in adoptions and an increase in animal intake. We have contact names and numbers if you or any of your readers would like to talk to people who have actually had experience with this type of relocation to contact themselves. To get first hand information would be more informative than to listen to people who are making statements that are not based on fact but are fashioned to blow things out of proportion to advance a personal agenda.

Please talk to the people actually doing hands-on-work with and for animals before going down a road paved by people who do not have the experience of saving animals on a daily basis.

I would be happy to provide you or any one with more information on this topic.
Let’s stay focused on real facts and save animal lives.

Below is a letter of support for the move:

ASPCA© Mission: Orange™
Statement of Support

The private non-profit business partners of the ASCPA Mission: Orange project wish to express our support for relocation of Town Lake Animal Center to the Levander site without delay.

The new shelter location will allow the city to focus services and resources on prevention in the geographic areas that need them most. This will include expanded micro-chipping, spay/neuter surgeries, and responsible pet stewardship.

Providing a new facility with a friendly, adequate adoption space will increase adoptions. The increased acreage will allow room for additional services to improve the quality of life for our community’s animals, such as a dog park.

The animals and people of Austin have waited long enough for a new facility. We encourage you to move forward without delay on this critically needed project.

Sincerely,
Frances Jonon, Executive Director, Austin Humane Society
Missy McCullough, Executive Director, Animal Trustees of Austin
Ellen Jefferson, DVM, Medical Director, emanciPET
Amy Mills, Executive Director, emanciPET
Karen Medicus, Team Leader, ASPCA Mission: Orange - Austin

Dear (name witheld),

Thank you for contacting us about your concerns regarding our perspective on the animal shelter issue. I can assure you that we do take the time and make every effort to get our facts straight before lending our time and expertise to any cause. This issue is certainly no exception.

You may be interested to read my initial assessment of the proposed new location on our blog here: http://blog.austinaction.org/?p=147

As you will read in that post, I said “the proposed new location is an out-of-sight, out-of-mind location. I started my research by driving out to the proposed site, looking around, watching traffic, and driving around the area. I came to the conclusion that the surrounding area is, for the most part, industrial in nature.” I have also reviewed the city’s zoning map to see how the surrounding tracts are zoned, and I stand by my statement.

You may also like to see the photos that I took of the surrounding area here

I also took it upon myself to download every document available from the 2006 Bond Advisory Committee website and review them for references to the shelter’s new location after the Statesman and city staff claimed that voters voted on this location. I found no evidence to indicate that a legitimate public process has taken place with regard to considering the new shelter location. On the contrary, I found evidence of promises that a public process would occur, but those promises were never fulfilled. That, in itself, is enough of a reason for me to be concerned.

So, as you can see, I did take the initiative to see firsthand what the shelter’s move would mean to me. Exactly what personal agenda are you referring to?

I would be interested to find out more about the national survey that you reference. I find it hard to believe that just by moving a shelter away from a well-known, downtown location, adoptions increase. But, I will be happy to review the information to see it for myself.

As far as staying focused on the facts, let’s dissect some of yours:

The new shelter location will allow the city to focus services and resources on prevention in the geographic areas that need them most. This will include expanded micro-chipping, spay/neuter surgeries, and responsible pet stewardship.

According to the City’s own records, the highest concentration of pets sheltered at TLAC come from Southwest Austin, not East Austin. None of the zip codes surrounding the City’s proposed site–near the intersection of Airport Road and East 7th Street–is even among the top 5 highest-intake zip codes. Couldn’t offsite adoption centers be used to reach areas that need additional services?

Providing a new facility with a friendly, adequate adoption space will increase adoptions. The increased acreage will allow room for additional services to improve the quality of life for our community’s animals, such as a dog park.

A dog park can be built at Levander Loop, regardless of whether the shelter is moved there. I have yet to see a proposed service for the new location that cannot be provided at the current one. On the contrary, city officials must resort to offsite adoption centers to bring services back to the “heavy foot traffic” areas if the shelter is moved.

I hope this is enough information to make it clear that we do attempt to get first-hand information before committing the AustinAction.org website to any issue. We deeply value our time and resources and will only commit ourselves to causes that we feel strongly about. Based on the response from the community, we are extremely confident that we are on the right side of this issue. After all, how can one argue that moving the shelter from a central location will be beneficial for the animals?

I encourage the ASPCA to reconsider their support for this ill-conceived move. People aren’t dumb - they see it for what it is - and it will only continue to hurt your credibility.

From the Austin Business Journal:

Advanced Micro Devices Inc. has laid off about 80 employees in Austin as part of a larger cost-cutting plan.

The layoffs include sales, marketing, administration and some engineering jobs.

The layoffs come after Advanced Micro Devices had a bad first quarter, due to stiff competition and a price war with Intel.

In the 2005 to 2006 fiscal year, the City of Austin killed 12,439 (51%) of the 24,390 pets that arrived at the shelter. (source: FixAustin.org) What will moving the shelter to East Airport mean for the kill rate, and what’s driving the move?

I have a friend who spends a lot of time at Town Lake Animal Center (TLAC), and he’s been telling me for a while about the city’s plans to move the shelter East off of Airport Blvd. A group of concerned citizens is questioning whether the proposed new location is really in the best interest of getting animals adopted. Then, the Statesman editorial board got involved, which makes me wonder about what their agenda is. Austinist also wrote a little something about it, too. It’s all sparked my interest, so I’ve spent a little time in the past couple of weeks learning what I can about the issue.

Here’s what I know at this point:

The proposed new location is an out-of-sight, out-of-mind location

I started my research by driving out to the proposed site, looking around, watching traffic, and driving around the area. I came to the conclusion that the surrounding area is, for the most part, industrial in nature. This is probably why I’ve never been out there before - I don’t have a reason to visit a cement plant or a warehouse shipping facility. A large amount of the vehicle traffic in the area is truck traffic. The location can also be confusing because it is where so many roads intersect, including E. 7th St., Airport Blvd., E. 1st St., and Hwy 183. I was out there for over an hour on a Saturday morning in good weather and only saw one pedestrian.

Truck traffic driving by the proposed new shelter location.

You can see a map and satellite view of the area, as well as photos that I took at Google Maps.

The facility is on Levander Loop, so I just drove the complete loop and took photos along the way.

The concern that this location raises in my mind is this: If I woke up on a Saturday morning and thought to myself, “I think I’ll go look at dogs today,” I would definitely be less likely to visit this location than the current one on Town Lake. I would be more likely to consider other options, such as the Humane Society or rescue groups.

The reason should be obvious, but it isn’t to everyone. To be fair, I visited TLAC and the surrounding area exactly one week later. The current location has pleasant surroundings and other things for me to do while I’m down there. Parks, trails, people out enjoying their weekend, and proximity to Lamar where I can get Amy’s Ice Cream, or tons of other things that I normally go downtown for. I can imagine a family being down at the ball park or the lake, and deciding to stop in at the shelter to look for that perfect pet.

People out enjoying the weekend around TLAC.

The Statesman argues that people will be happy to go out of their way to adopt a pet:

People who intend to obtain a dog or cat from the animal shelter won’t be deterred because the facility is no longer on the western edge of downtown. Most of them want to obtain a pet and save an animal’s life at the same time, so location is not an important factor.

This statement assumes that people won’t consider other options for adopting a pet, of which there are plenty. The city’s pound is in competition with pet stores, rescue groups, classifieds, and in some capacity the Humane Society. If your goal is to adopt out as many animals as you can so you don’t have to kill them, why wouldn’t you make it as easy as possible for people to find you?

Austin needs a new shelter

There are certainly problems with the existing shelter. It is 50 years old and inadequate. But, is the East Airport location really the best we can do? Did the city even consider rebuilding the shelter at its current location, or are there other properties available that would be better suited for retail? Essentially, the adoption function of the shelter is no different than retail. Would anyone place a for-profit retail store at this location? Only if they don’t want many customers.

Again, the Statesman:

Austin voters had their say on the shelter location last fall in the city’s bond issue election.

Really? I don’t remember the shelter location being on the ballot. Sure, I knew about bond money going towards a new shelter, but where was the public process to weigh in on the location?

The proponents of the new location continue to say that there were eight public meetings where citizens had the opportunity to voice their concerns regarding the new location. The best I can tell, they are referring to the Bond Advisory Committee meetings.

I’ve downloaded and looked at meeting agendas, minutes, and presentation documents, as well as the public comments from the 2006 Bond Advisory Committee website. Unless I’ve missed something, I can’t find much of a record of support, or even a presentation for that matter, of the new shelter location. There are a few public comments in support of a new shelter in general, but the only comment that I have found that mentions the new location is opposed to it. There are powerpoint presentations for a skate park and library, among other things. But no animal shelter.

Maybe I missed it. However, if it was being thoroughly discussed during eight meetings over a two-year period, I would think it would be easier to find a record of all that public discussion. I certainly don’t remember discussions about the proposed location. I do remember the skaters supporting the skate park, so I wasn’t just away from the planet at the time.

The proponents of the move mention the flooding of the current location as a reason the shelter must be moved. I have a couple of questions about that: 1) It has been explained to me that the flooding is due to the drains not being kept clean and clear. When the city analyzed the cost of rebuilding at the current location, did they consider mitigating the drainage/flooding problem? 2) If it is impossible to rebuild at the current location, what were the top five alternate sites that were considered?

Once again, the Statesman

The new shelter will be larger and safer for the animals.

Actually, the proposed new shelter will have the same amount of cage space that exists for the animals today. There will be more office space, however.

Parkland

This is perhaps the most interesting piece of information that I have found while researching this issue.

The Statesman:

Opponents of the move have tossed around fears of a new condominium complex planned for the current shelter site. But that is a red herring. The property is dedicated parkland and it would take a vote of the people to change that designation. Moving the shelter will add more recreational facilities to an area of town where many young Austinites have played soccer, football and baseball for years.

But, News8Austin says:

City leaders say an alternative site for the courthouse would be the Town Lake Animal Center on West Cesar Chavez after they move in a few years. Thanks to last year’s bond election, the 50-year-old animal shelter will be moved to a new $12 million, 40,000-square-foot facility on the Health and Human Services campus on Airport Boulevard.

Remember when the Intel shell was about to be imploded downtown to make room for the new federal courthouse, and the mayor and other city council members were rushing around, trying to keep the site so it could be sold to developers and increase our tax base? Turns out that the city was offering Town Lake Animal Center to the feds so they could build their new courthouse on parkland.

That raises a few questions, such as:

What about the parkland that requires a city-wide vote?

What about the ball fields?

What about the flooding?

Just what are the city’s plans for this land once the shelter is gone?

This article at AlterNet is about homeowner association regulations that often make environmental responsibility impossible by outlawing clotheslines, solar panels — even gardens.

The article mentions specific cases in a variety of regions, but it also has a couple of Austin examples, as well.

Alice (not her real name) lives in the Lakeside Estates subdivision of Austin, Texas. Because her HOA bans outdoor clothes drying, Alice told me by email, she slips out to her back yard on summer mornings with one of those expanding “umbrella”-style clotheslines, puts it up, and hangs her laundry: “I put things out and try to get them in as soon as I can. I don’t leave my clothesline out when it isn’t in use.”

Alice has received no warnings from her HOA — yet. But you wouldn’t expect such guerilla-style energy conservation to be necessary in laid-back Austin. Alice says, “Yeah, usually people think of Austin and they think of relaxed attitudes. But I think since the housing market boomed, it has made people a lot less relaxed.”

Evidence to back up her theory can be found just across town, beyond the northwest corner of Austin’s city limits in the middle-class suburb of Hunter’s Chase. There, Jason and Lisa Spangler have been maintaining a garden of native wildflowers and other plants in their front yard for years. But they almost lost their native plantings in August 2002, when they received a violation notice on behalf of their HOA.

Jason told me, “Someone came by on a ‘random inspection,’ taking pictures, and thought it was some sort of grass and weeds.” The Spanglers faced legal action if they didn’t mow it all down.

“One board member said she had an art degree,” said Jason, “and she could see that ‘texture’ of our yard just didn’t look right.”

Austin does like to pride itself on being enviro-friendly, but there’s still quite a bit of progress that can be made. The article goes on to say that some state governments are beginning to crack down on over-restrictive HOA’s. I wouldn’t hold my breath for that to happen in Texas anytime soon.

The El Paso Times reports that the Longhorn Pipeline, “which was bought in August by Flying J — an Ogden, Utah, operator of 256 truck stops nationwide and two small refineries — plans to almost double the pipeline’s shipping capacity by mid-2008.”

“The addition of four pumping stations will increase Longhorn’s shipping capacity from 72,000 barrels a day to 125,000 barrels a day.”

The Longhorn Pipeline is a petroleum pipeline that was built in 1950 to carry crude oil 450 miles from Crane, Texas to Houston refineries. The Longhorn Parters Pipeline Co. bought the pipeline from Exxon in 1995 with plans to extend the line 250 additional miles from Crane to El Paso in order to pump refined fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel the 700 miles from Houston to El Paso.

After several court battles, changes of line operators, and financial hardships, Flying J purchased the pipeline.

The areas that the pipeline runs through have changed significantly since the pipeline was built in 1950. It runs through densely populated neighborhoods in Houston and Austin, near schools, through parks, as well as through creeks, rivers, and water supplies, including the environmentally sensitive Edwards Aquifer.

Although Longhorn was required, as part of a court settlement, to replace the 1950’s pipe with new pipe over the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones, the vast majority that goes through urban areas is the original line.

You can see photos of the pipeline at AustinAction’s Longhorn Pipeline information page, including news footage of the pipe after it exploded in Houston during a test.