FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Contact: Mayor’s Office of Communications, 415-554-6131
*** PRESS RELEASE ***
MAYOR LEE SIGNS URBAN AGRICULTURE LEGISLATION FOR GREATER LOCAL FOOD
PRODUCTION IN SF
San Francisco, CA— Mayor Edwin M. Lee today signed into law an amendment to
San Francisco’s planning code that will explicitly allow for “urban
agriculture” in all areas of the City and the sale of produce from urban
gardens in all non-residential zones.
“The Urban Agriculture Ordinance will allow for greater local food
production within City limits,” said Mayor Lee. “This legislation will not
only help support our community through the increased production of fresh,
locally grown produce, but will also revitalize vacant arable land and
create green jobs.”
“Urban agriculture provides significant health, environmental and economic
benefits,” said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, who co-sponsored
the Ordinance. “This bill puts San Francisco on the map as a national
leader in urban agriculture, and is a tangible example of how government
can create more sustainable communities.”
The Urban Agriculture Ordinance amends the San Francisco Planning Code to
recognize various scales and intensities of local food production, from
small scale gardens to larger-scale urban agriculture. The legislation
allows for the sale, pick-up and donation of fresh food and horticultural
products grown on-site in all districts, and for the sale of “value-added
products” such as jams or pickles where the primary ingredients are grown
and produced on-site in all districts except districts zoned for
exclusively residential uses. Food and horticultural products grown that
are used for personal consumption remain unregulated.
“The Urban Agriculture Ordinance will help San Francisco grow healthy food
within our own boundaries,” said San Francisco Planning Department Director
John Rahaim. “The Ordinance establishes parameters for urban agriculture
that will ensure that these gardens are operated in a way that is
compatible with and complimentary to our City's urban neighborhoods.”
The San Francisco Planning Department, in coordination with the Department
of Public Health, Department of the Environment and San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission, worked with numerous community stakeholders to draft
the Ordinance.
“With this change, San Francisco makes it clear that gardens and urban
farms are welcome in all parts of the city. The new law not only
encourages people to connect with food and build community by cultivating
fruits and vegetables in their neighborhoods, but also allows
entrepreneurial gardeners to earn a little extra cash or to make a living
selling what they grow,” said San Francisco Urban Agriculture Alliance
(SFUAA) Co-Coordinator Eli Zigas. “We commend Mayor Lee, Supervisor Chiu,
and the Planning Department for their leadership on urban agriculture.”
The Ordinance is an instrumental part of the City’s efforts to encourage
local food production in the region. In July 2009, former Mayor Gavin
Newsom issued Executive Directive 09-03, Healthy and Sustainable Food for
San Francisco, which directed all City departments to implement actions
consistent with the goal of fostering local food production in San
Francisco. The Ordinance, co-sponsored by Mayor Lee and Supervisors David
Chiu, Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi and Malia Cohen, passed the Board of
Supervisors on April 12th.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
New CC Mag and IJCCR
Community Currency Magazine http://ccmag.net/sites/ccmag.net/files/april2011_ccmag.pdf
IJCCR International Journal for Complementary Currency Researchhttp://www.ijccr.net/IJCCR/2011_%2815%29.html
IJCCR International Journal for Complementary Currency Researchhttp://www.ijccr.net/IJCCR/2011_%2815%29.html
Thursday, April 14, 2011
BNotes:Group proposes alternative currency to support local economy
BNote bills could be used only at area businesses, keeping value in city
By Liz F. Kay, The Baltimore Sun
February 21, 2011
A Baltimore group wants to put civic pride in your wallet.
The Baltimore Green Currency Association, a nonprofit that aims to help small restaurants and mom-and-pop retailers fend off the big chains, is trying to build an alternative economy — mostly in Hampden. To do so, the group plans to issue a local currency called BNotes.
Customers wanting to buy local could use the currency at more than 25 businesses. And they would get a built-in discount because $10 would get you 11 BNotes, which could be exchanged dollar-for-BNote at designated merchants. The businesses would then be able to use the currency to purchase goods and services from each other.
BNote boosters plan to unveil the design for the bills on Friday and to put them into circulation in mid-April. They recently launched a campaign to raise money to print the BNote bills.
Local currencies have been implemented around the country, in communities such as Ithaca, N.Y., and the Berkshires in Massachusetts. And similar programs have been tried before in Baltimore.
A system known as "time banking," which allows people to barter hours of work for such services as graphic design, baby-sitting or carpentry, has been used in a number of communities around the Baltimore area, to varying degrees of success. An effort known as Baltimore Hours started in the early 2000s but did not last.
The latest currency association — all volunteers — focused on Hampden because it has a defined geographic area and a number of independent businesses. Restaurants such as McCabe's and nearby Woodberry Kitchen have agreed to accept the currency, as well as some outside Hampden including Zeke's Coffee in Lauraville. The merchant directory also includes computer repair servicer Little Shop of Hardware and vintage clothier Minas Gallery and Boutique.
Unlike dollars that could be spent anywhere, BNotes would be tied to participating businesses, and those who receive them would be motivated to put them back into circulation. The currency group's executive director, Jeff Dicken, said the BNote also would bring back a "social element" to business transactions.
The BNote "ends up circulating locally more persistently and more quickly than the dollar," Dicken said. "They're the lubricant in the economic system."
Steve H. Hanke, a professor of applied economics at the Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said the BNotes discount may offer a temporary impact, but usually forms of scrip sprout during tough times and don't last long.
"Whatever the benefits might be, the subjective valuations ultimately get swamped by the other set of subjective valuations, such as the cost and inconvenience of it," he said.
It's not illegal to print currency, though one cannot mint coins. And the bills would be counted like dollars for tax purposes.
The Baltimore group plans to base how much currency to put into circulation on several factors, including the total revenue of the participating businesses and the amount of demand.
Participating businesses can control how they choose to accept BNotes — restricting them to a certain percentage of each transaction, for example. Employers could pay a portion of staff salaries in BNotes.
If this small-scale experiment succeeds, the currency group hopes to one day offer interest-free business loans to invest in local supply chains — diversifying the local economy and eliminating the need to ship goods from long distances. Debit cards and electronic payments are another future possibility.
Patrick Ito, chef at McCabe's, said he envisions offering the BNotes to staff as bonuses, such as "employee of the month" awards. He hopes the currency group can persuade local farms that supply him and other Hampden restaurants to accept the BNote.
"The big selling point was trying to keep money flowing through and in the neighborhood," he said. "The more businesses that use it, the more effective it is."
Other business owners are taking a wait-and-see approach, said Benn Ray, co-owner of Atomic Books. He's also president of the Hampden Village Merchants Association, where he said some members have had questions. With the slow economy and limited sources of credit, having assets tied up in such a program could be a "tricky proposition" for a small business, he said.
"I have a feeling as with most of these things, there will be some businesses that greatly benefit and thrive from this, and other businesses that see it doesn't make much sense for them," said Ray, who added that he supports the group's intent.
Michael Reeder of Hygeia Counseling Services in Mount Washington said BNotes make sense given the current economic climate.
"It helps me out to be promoted by them, to be one of the initial few in my category," he said. "Anything that helps me differentiate from the competition, I'm there."
While some local currencies are no longer in circulation, others have become integral to the local economy. In the Berkshires, about $2.8 million worth of BerkShares have circulated since September 2006, with about $135,000 still in circulation, said Susan Witt, BerkShares co-founder and education director of the New Economics Institute.
"What local currencies are, ideally, is this extraordinarily flexible and targeted regional economic development tool," she said.
BerkShares currently is a very sophisticated "buy local" program, she said. "If you have BerkShares in your pocket, it's a reminder not to go to the Internet, not to go to big chain stores, but to go the local businesses that are part of your Main Street."
Any local currency requires time and education to overcome the perceived inconvenience and unfamiliarity, Witt said. "Our habits around financial transactions are deeply ingrained now," she said. "We don't look at the person we're paying. We don't have a conversation with them."
liz.kay@baltsun.com
By Liz F. Kay, The Baltimore Sun
February 21, 2011
A Baltimore group wants to put civic pride in your wallet.
The Baltimore Green Currency Association, a nonprofit that aims to help small restaurants and mom-and-pop retailers fend off the big chains, is trying to build an alternative economy — mostly in Hampden. To do so, the group plans to issue a local currency called BNotes.
Customers wanting to buy local could use the currency at more than 25 businesses. And they would get a built-in discount because $10 would get you 11 BNotes, which could be exchanged dollar-for-BNote at designated merchants. The businesses would then be able to use the currency to purchase goods and services from each other.
BNote boosters plan to unveil the design for the bills on Friday and to put them into circulation in mid-April. They recently launched a campaign to raise money to print the BNote bills.
Local currencies have been implemented around the country, in communities such as Ithaca, N.Y., and the Berkshires in Massachusetts. And similar programs have been tried before in Baltimore.
A system known as "time banking," which allows people to barter hours of work for such services as graphic design, baby-sitting or carpentry, has been used in a number of communities around the Baltimore area, to varying degrees of success. An effort known as Baltimore Hours started in the early 2000s but did not last.
The latest currency association — all volunteers — focused on Hampden because it has a defined geographic area and a number of independent businesses. Restaurants such as McCabe's and nearby Woodberry Kitchen have agreed to accept the currency, as well as some outside Hampden including Zeke's Coffee in Lauraville. The merchant directory also includes computer repair servicer Little Shop of Hardware and vintage clothier Minas Gallery and Boutique.
Unlike dollars that could be spent anywhere, BNotes would be tied to participating businesses, and those who receive them would be motivated to put them back into circulation. The currency group's executive director, Jeff Dicken, said the BNote also would bring back a "social element" to business transactions.
The BNote "ends up circulating locally more persistently and more quickly than the dollar," Dicken said. "They're the lubricant in the economic system."
Steve H. Hanke, a professor of applied economics at the Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said the BNotes discount may offer a temporary impact, but usually forms of scrip sprout during tough times and don't last long.
"Whatever the benefits might be, the subjective valuations ultimately get swamped by the other set of subjective valuations, such as the cost and inconvenience of it," he said.
It's not illegal to print currency, though one cannot mint coins. And the bills would be counted like dollars for tax purposes.
The Baltimore group plans to base how much currency to put into circulation on several factors, including the total revenue of the participating businesses and the amount of demand.
Participating businesses can control how they choose to accept BNotes — restricting them to a certain percentage of each transaction, for example. Employers could pay a portion of staff salaries in BNotes.
If this small-scale experiment succeeds, the currency group hopes to one day offer interest-free business loans to invest in local supply chains — diversifying the local economy and eliminating the need to ship goods from long distances. Debit cards and electronic payments are another future possibility.
Patrick Ito, chef at McCabe's, said he envisions offering the BNotes to staff as bonuses, such as "employee of the month" awards. He hopes the currency group can persuade local farms that supply him and other Hampden restaurants to accept the BNote.
"The big selling point was trying to keep money flowing through and in the neighborhood," he said. "The more businesses that use it, the more effective it is."
Other business owners are taking a wait-and-see approach, said Benn Ray, co-owner of Atomic Books. He's also president of the Hampden Village Merchants Association, where he said some members have had questions. With the slow economy and limited sources of credit, having assets tied up in such a program could be a "tricky proposition" for a small business, he said.
"I have a feeling as with most of these things, there will be some businesses that greatly benefit and thrive from this, and other businesses that see it doesn't make much sense for them," said Ray, who added that he supports the group's intent.
Michael Reeder of Hygeia Counseling Services in Mount Washington said BNotes make sense given the current economic climate.
"It helps me out to be promoted by them, to be one of the initial few in my category," he said. "Anything that helps me differentiate from the competition, I'm there."
While some local currencies are no longer in circulation, others have become integral to the local economy. In the Berkshires, about $2.8 million worth of BerkShares have circulated since September 2006, with about $135,000 still in circulation, said Susan Witt, BerkShares co-founder and education director of the New Economics Institute.
"What local currencies are, ideally, is this extraordinarily flexible and targeted regional economic development tool," she said.
BerkShares currently is a very sophisticated "buy local" program, she said. "If you have BerkShares in your pocket, it's a reminder not to go to the Internet, not to go to big chain stores, but to go the local businesses that are part of your Main Street."
Any local currency requires time and education to overcome the perceived inconvenience and unfamiliarity, Witt said. "Our habits around financial transactions are deeply ingrained now," she said. "We don't look at the person we're paying. We don't have a conversation with them."
liz.kay@baltsun.com
Central bank warns of dangers of "local" currencies issued by municipalities
Editor's note: These currencies must be doing quite well to initiate propaganda against them by the Hungarian Central Bank. I do not know the specifics of these currencies referred to, however, most local currencies have more forge-proofing elements than national money, have more value than the destructive (backed by high interest debt) and inflation-prone national money, and I don't know how they could be less supportive of the local economy -that just doesn't make sense. Obviously a very short article that is unable to provide evidence of its claims. Three cheers for autonomous Sopron!
From the Realdeal.hu
April 14, 2011
There are several risks associated with so-called "local" currencies being issued by some municipalities in Hungary, the Hungarian National Bank has warned. Experts from the bank say they are easier to forge, have an uncertain value, and they do not support local economy.
A local currency was introduced in Sopron in 2009, while other regions and towns planning their own local currencies include Rábaköz, Pécs, Veszprém and Debrecen.
From the Realdeal.hu
April 14, 2011
There are several risks associated with so-called "local" currencies being issued by some municipalities in Hungary, the Hungarian National Bank has warned. Experts from the bank say they are easier to forge, have an uncertain value, and they do not support local economy.
A local currency was introduced in Sopron in 2009, while other regions and towns planning their own local currencies include Rábaköz, Pécs, Veszprém and Debrecen.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Sharp Drop in American Enthusiasm for Free Market, Poll Shows
From World Public Opinion
April 6, 2011
American public support for the free market economy has dropped sharply in the past year, and is now lower than in China, according to a GlobeScan poll released today.
The findings, drawn from 12,884 interviews across 25 countries, show that there has been a sharp fall in the number of Americans who think that the free market economy is the best economic system for the future.
When GlobeScan began tracking views in 2002, four in five Americans (80%) saw the free market as the best economic system for the future--the highest level of support among tracking countries. Support started to fall away in the following years and recovered slightly after the financial crisis in 2007/8, but has plummeted since 2009, falling 15 points in a year so that fewer than three in five (59%) now see free market capitalism as the best system for the future.
GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller commented: "America is the last place we would have expected to see such a sharp drop in trust in the free enterprise system. This is not good news for business."
The results mean that a number of the world's major emerging economies have now matched or overtaken the USA in their enthusiasm for the free market. The Chinese and Brazilians, 67 percent of whom regard the free market system as the best on offer, are now more positive about capitalism than Americans, while enthusiasm in India now equals that in the USA, with 59 percent rating the free market as the best system for the future.
Among the 20 countries polled in both 2009 and 2010, an average of 54 percent today rate the free market economy as the best economic system, unchanged from 2009.
Americans with incomes below $20,000 were particularly likely to have lost faith in the free market over the past year, with their support dropping from 76 percent to 44 percent between 2009 and 2010. American women have also become much less positive, with 52 percent backing the free market in 2010, down from 73 percent in 2009.
The poll was conducted by telephone in China and the US, and by telephone, in-person, or online in the 23 other countries between June 24 and September 18, 2010 by the international polling firm GlobeScan and its national partners. Before today's public release, only clients of GlobeScan's "Radar" reports have had access to these results. National results are considered accurate within +/- 3.0 to +/- 4.9 percent, 19 times out of 20.
GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller added: "The poll suggest that American business is close to losing its social contract with average American families that has enabled it to prosper in the world. Inspired leadership will be needed to reverse this trend."
Fieldwork was conducted in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the USA. Interviews were conducted via face-to-face, by telephone, or online (Japan only) between June 24 and September 18, 2010. Polling was conducted by GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. Some urban-only surveying was conducted in certain developing countries, following generally accepted research standards in each country. The margin of error per country ranges from +/-3.0 to 4.9 percent, 19 times out of 20.
For more information about GlobeScan see www.GlobeScan.com
April 6, 2011
American public support for the free market economy has dropped sharply in the past year, and is now lower than in China, according to a GlobeScan poll released today.
The findings, drawn from 12,884 interviews across 25 countries, show that there has been a sharp fall in the number of Americans who think that the free market economy is the best economic system for the future.
When GlobeScan began tracking views in 2002, four in five Americans (80%) saw the free market as the best economic system for the future--the highest level of support among tracking countries. Support started to fall away in the following years and recovered slightly after the financial crisis in 2007/8, but has plummeted since 2009, falling 15 points in a year so that fewer than three in five (59%) now see free market capitalism as the best system for the future.
GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller commented: "America is the last place we would have expected to see such a sharp drop in trust in the free enterprise system. This is not good news for business."
The results mean that a number of the world's major emerging economies have now matched or overtaken the USA in their enthusiasm for the free market. The Chinese and Brazilians, 67 percent of whom regard the free market system as the best on offer, are now more positive about capitalism than Americans, while enthusiasm in India now equals that in the USA, with 59 percent rating the free market as the best system for the future.
Among the 20 countries polled in both 2009 and 2010, an average of 54 percent today rate the free market economy as the best economic system, unchanged from 2009.
Americans with incomes below $20,000 were particularly likely to have lost faith in the free market over the past year, with their support dropping from 76 percent to 44 percent between 2009 and 2010. American women have also become much less positive, with 52 percent backing the free market in 2010, down from 73 percent in 2009.
The poll was conducted by telephone in China and the US, and by telephone, in-person, or online in the 23 other countries between June 24 and September 18, 2010 by the international polling firm GlobeScan and its national partners. Before today's public release, only clients of GlobeScan's "Radar" reports have had access to these results. National results are considered accurate within +/- 3.0 to +/- 4.9 percent, 19 times out of 20.
GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller added: "The poll suggest that American business is close to losing its social contract with average American families that has enabled it to prosper in the world. Inspired leadership will be needed to reverse this trend."
Fieldwork was conducted in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the USA. Interviews were conducted via face-to-face, by telephone, or online (Japan only) between June 24 and September 18, 2010. Polling was conducted by GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. Some urban-only surveying was conducted in certain developing countries, following generally accepted research standards in each country. The margin of error per country ranges from +/-3.0 to 4.9 percent, 19 times out of 20.
For more information about GlobeScan see www.GlobeScan.com
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Postcards from the Nuclear Apocalypse
I've been absorbed in work, writing an article on how to start a worker coop, and fleeing the radiation cloud. Yes, I fled the initial plume of radiation from Japan that hit California on March 18th for a week and a half.
I used to work as a nuclear policy analyst in the state legislature, with a nonprofit, and with the US Department of Energy on "safer" nuclear waste storage, then in nuclear news analysis for an international energy thinktank.
I can tell you that there is a media blackout of the radiation impact. What little media there is downplays the risk and makes ridiculous comparisons between chest x-rays, flights from SF to NY, and the serious risk we face by inhaling and ingesting radioactive particles that could easily lodge in our tissues and radiate us for the rest of our lives http://projectpangaia.blogspot.com/2011/04/radiation-levels-are-1000-times-higher.html giving us all different kinds of serious cancers (in the case of cesium and other isotopes) and give us thyroid cancer in the case of iodine (particularly in children).
Think about it. Nuclear is being touted as a solution to climate change. Many nuclear power plants around the world and US are up for renewal and new ones want to be built. This is a multi-billion dollar industry highly subsidized by the government. If there was one bad accident, then would the public allow new plants to be built? Wouldn't the industry/government minimize the risk of radiation from that accident especially if the consequences wouldn't be clear for a decade or two?
First Japan/TEPCO said there was no risk outside the evacuation area, then there was no risk to Tokyo, then the ocean. There was no breach of the containment vessel at reactor 3 with MOX plutonium fuel. Then the workers got high radiation from leaking water. Then there was plutonium found in the soil outside the plant http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/plutonium-carries-serious-risks-public-health-environment.html. But not to worry, there were only small amounts of plutonium - only the most toxic and longest living radioisotope known to man. President Obama said radioactive fallout will not reach the US. Then it was here in small amounts. Now it's in the water, drinking water and food.
When I worked in this field I was exposed to cover-up after cover-up of the nuclear industry and the government's own data. The nuclear industry had bought off most the higher level government officials and it owns most of the mainstream media.
Then there were many who were conveniently just ignorant. My housemate was a nuclear fuel engineer. He said he opted out of a health physicist class when he was doing his nuclear program. He admitted he didn't really know the dangers of radiation even though he designed nuclear fuel.
That is not to say that I know we are being exposed to significant levels of radiation but it is quite clear that we do not know we are not (although we can assume there will be no immediate acute radiation poisoning health impacts in the US- the impacts will be long-term if any). Certainly the risk after Chernobyl was drastically downplayed. Only hundreds of people would get cancer according to mainstream sources, now decades later the numbers reach beyond a million extra cancers. The EPA (which is not a beacon for truth telling on issues of environmental health- I worked in that field for another 4 years) took down many of its radiation monitors the week the radioactive plume arrived for "repair". They are also considering raising the safe levels of radiation standards.
According to Physicians for Social Responsibility and NIRS http://www.nirs.org/mononline/newrad.htm and http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nosafedose.pdf there is no safe threshold for radiation, especially for internal radiation. Every added dose creates a greater likelihood of cancer and other significant health problems. Even the harmless xrays the media throws in for comparison are not harmless. Mammograms increase breast cancer risk and CT scans can cause brain cancer. Though there are no controlled scientific studies that I am aware of that subject people to ingested radiation so we don't know how much radiation it takes for a person to get cancer. It probably depends a lot on the person- age, sex, immune system, life style, other carcinogenic exposures, etc.
We do know that there is now radioactive iodine and cesium in the rainwater and some kinds of foods and radioactive iodine in the drinking water from UC Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Department http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling. There was an article about this posted on BBC, which disappeared. It is most certainly censored in the US as it is a prime worry on many people's minds, yet no news???
It is one thing to not want to be afraid, it is another thing to turn a blind eye to potential danger. At least admitting the potential danger we can take basic precautions http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/radcombined.htm and we can start working towards a nuclear free future.
What does this have to do with alternative economics? EVERYTHING. As I drove through the deserts of Utah, I reevaluated my life. Have I acted with the utmost care and urgency that the care of our Earth and ourselves need now? NO. I keep participating in the system that feeds nuclear power. I still pay taxes, though not much and only because they take it out of my tiny check each month, which goes towards nuclear power subsidies from the government. I still use power from the grid that is partially derived from nuclear energy. I still to some degree put my energy into an economic system that feeds corporations that consume and pollute our sacred mother Earth. Though I am urgently trying to create a new economic system that takes energy away from the bad and feeds it into the things that we value and care about.
I saw a movie a couple nights ago called Living Without Money. The old woman in the film felt such intense urgency about not participating in this destructive system that she has tried to drop out and hasn't used money for the last 14 years. This reminded me of a meeting of community members in West Texas where a nuclear waste dump was going to be built nearby over the largest aquifer in the country. They said "Let's never use their energy again, let's burn our energy bills and build wind power plants." Today they are making that happen.
When will you feel the urgency to take drastic action? Do your kids have to get cancer? Do all the fish have to be gone first? As the Cree Indian prophecy says, "Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money." Derek Jensen advocates blowing up dams and destroying other property that is implicated in irreversible environmental destruction. Maybe this isn't the best way to deal with things although I appreciate his sense of urgency. Franklin Lopez who produced a film about him said one thing we can do is rebuild our local economy and local government. It's the only scale where we can have significant impact given the corruption, lack of transparency, and accountability at higher levels of government and in big corporations. And if we withdraw our energy from the corporations and Feds we might just have a chance at winning this battle.
What can you do today? Will you just go back to work tomorrow, come home and watch the news until it depresses you enough to turn it off?
Drop out of the dominant economic system as much as possible and tune in to help us build new healthier local economies. Invest locally and directly your time, energy, resources and money into making the transition to a sane economy. An economy that cares for the foundation of our existence- the Earth. One that cares for everyone - we are all interconnected. One where you move towards your true happiness and those around you. Join a transition town group and begin nonrenewable energy descent in your area. Start a timebank or local currency. Grow more food locally. Use human powered energy. Join Slow Money and your local credit union.
Each day of your life you make a choice to go along and watch the disasters unfold on the news or to stop now, stand up, and build the world we all wish we lived in.
I used to work as a nuclear policy analyst in the state legislature, with a nonprofit, and with the US Department of Energy on "safer" nuclear waste storage, then in nuclear news analysis for an international energy thinktank.
I can tell you that there is a media blackout of the radiation impact. What little media there is downplays the risk and makes ridiculous comparisons between chest x-rays, flights from SF to NY, and the serious risk we face by inhaling and ingesting radioactive particles that could easily lodge in our tissues and radiate us for the rest of our lives http://projectpangaia.blogspot.com/2011/04/radiation-levels-are-1000-times-higher.html giving us all different kinds of serious cancers (in the case of cesium and other isotopes) and give us thyroid cancer in the case of iodine (particularly in children).
Think about it. Nuclear is being touted as a solution to climate change. Many nuclear power plants around the world and US are up for renewal and new ones want to be built. This is a multi-billion dollar industry highly subsidized by the government. If there was one bad accident, then would the public allow new plants to be built? Wouldn't the industry/government minimize the risk of radiation from that accident especially if the consequences wouldn't be clear for a decade or two?
First Japan/TEPCO said there was no risk outside the evacuation area, then there was no risk to Tokyo, then the ocean. There was no breach of the containment vessel at reactor 3 with MOX plutonium fuel. Then the workers got high radiation from leaking water. Then there was plutonium found in the soil outside the plant http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/plutonium-carries-serious-risks-public-health-environment.html. But not to worry, there were only small amounts of plutonium - only the most toxic and longest living radioisotope known to man. President Obama said radioactive fallout will not reach the US. Then it was here in small amounts. Now it's in the water, drinking water and food.
When I worked in this field I was exposed to cover-up after cover-up of the nuclear industry and the government's own data. The nuclear industry had bought off most the higher level government officials and it owns most of the mainstream media.
Then there were many who were conveniently just ignorant. My housemate was a nuclear fuel engineer. He said he opted out of a health physicist class when he was doing his nuclear program. He admitted he didn't really know the dangers of radiation even though he designed nuclear fuel.
That is not to say that I know we are being exposed to significant levels of radiation but it is quite clear that we do not know we are not (although we can assume there will be no immediate acute radiation poisoning health impacts in the US- the impacts will be long-term if any). Certainly the risk after Chernobyl was drastically downplayed. Only hundreds of people would get cancer according to mainstream sources, now decades later the numbers reach beyond a million extra cancers. The EPA (which is not a beacon for truth telling on issues of environmental health- I worked in that field for another 4 years) took down many of its radiation monitors the week the radioactive plume arrived for "repair". They are also considering raising the safe levels of radiation standards.
According to Physicians for Social Responsibility and NIRS http://www.nirs.org/mononline/newrad.htm and http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nosafedose.pdf there is no safe threshold for radiation, especially for internal radiation. Every added dose creates a greater likelihood of cancer and other significant health problems. Even the harmless xrays the media throws in for comparison are not harmless. Mammograms increase breast cancer risk and CT scans can cause brain cancer. Though there are no controlled scientific studies that I am aware of that subject people to ingested radiation so we don't know how much radiation it takes for a person to get cancer. It probably depends a lot on the person- age, sex, immune system, life style, other carcinogenic exposures, etc.
We do know that there is now radioactive iodine and cesium in the rainwater and some kinds of foods and radioactive iodine in the drinking water from UC Berkeley's Nuclear Engineering Department http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling. There was an article about this posted on BBC, which disappeared. It is most certainly censored in the US as it is a prime worry on many people's minds, yet no news???
It is one thing to not want to be afraid, it is another thing to turn a blind eye to potential danger. At least admitting the potential danger we can take basic precautions http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/radcombined.htm and we can start working towards a nuclear free future.
What does this have to do with alternative economics? EVERYTHING. As I drove through the deserts of Utah, I reevaluated my life. Have I acted with the utmost care and urgency that the care of our Earth and ourselves need now? NO. I keep participating in the system that feeds nuclear power. I still pay taxes, though not much and only because they take it out of my tiny check each month, which goes towards nuclear power subsidies from the government. I still use power from the grid that is partially derived from nuclear energy. I still to some degree put my energy into an economic system that feeds corporations that consume and pollute our sacred mother Earth. Though I am urgently trying to create a new economic system that takes energy away from the bad and feeds it into the things that we value and care about.
I saw a movie a couple nights ago called Living Without Money. The old woman in the film felt such intense urgency about not participating in this destructive system that she has tried to drop out and hasn't used money for the last 14 years. This reminded me of a meeting of community members in West Texas where a nuclear waste dump was going to be built nearby over the largest aquifer in the country. They said "Let's never use their energy again, let's burn our energy bills and build wind power plants." Today they are making that happen.
When will you feel the urgency to take drastic action? Do your kids have to get cancer? Do all the fish have to be gone first? As the Cree Indian prophecy says, "Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money." Derek Jensen advocates blowing up dams and destroying other property that is implicated in irreversible environmental destruction. Maybe this isn't the best way to deal with things although I appreciate his sense of urgency. Franklin Lopez who produced a film about him said one thing we can do is rebuild our local economy and local government. It's the only scale where we can have significant impact given the corruption, lack of transparency, and accountability at higher levels of government and in big corporations. And if we withdraw our energy from the corporations and Feds we might just have a chance at winning this battle.
What can you do today? Will you just go back to work tomorrow, come home and watch the news until it depresses you enough to turn it off?
Drop out of the dominant economic system as much as possible and tune in to help us build new healthier local economies. Invest locally and directly your time, energy, resources and money into making the transition to a sane economy. An economy that cares for the foundation of our existence- the Earth. One that cares for everyone - we are all interconnected. One where you move towards your true happiness and those around you. Join a transition town group and begin nonrenewable energy descent in your area. Start a timebank or local currency. Grow more food locally. Use human powered energy. Join Slow Money and your local credit union.
Each day of your life you make a choice to go along and watch the disasters unfold on the news or to stop now, stand up, and build the world we all wish we lived in.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
How to Share a Job
By Cat Johnson
From Shareable.net
03.09.11
There’s something very cool happening in the workplace — people are re-claiming their lives. They’re creating a more humane work/life balance, they’re spending less time in the office, and, yet, their careers are thriving. How can this be? Two words: job sharing.
To best explain what job sharing is, let’s start with what it is not. It is not two people working part-time jobs in parallel. That’s just part-time work. Job sharing is two people, through shared responsibilities, identity, and accountability, occupying one position. They are a single unit, a team.
Laurie Cremona Wagner and Elaine Miller have been job-sharing, career partners for years. Throughout their career they have held several high-impact corporate positions and are currently Director of Marketing and Strategic Initiatives at EMC. The two women, both of whom have children, have been able to not only maintain, but further their careers while also having quality time to spend with their families. They have had such success with job sharing that, in 2008, they founded a Bay Area non-profit, Mission Job Share, to spread awareness and job-sharing resources.
“There’s no way that we would ever have had the kind of jobs we’ve had, that are really demanding, more than full-time positions, without job sharing,” says Cremona Wagner. “We’re not job sharing because we want to plateau our careers; we’re doing this because we want to accelerate and grow our careers.”
When thoughtfully executed, job sharing is a win for everyone involved — employees have the personal time that they need while maintaining their position in the company, and employers are able to retain high-performing individuals and glean the value of having two valuable (and not over-worked) people on their team.
And job sharing is not limited to the corporate world. Michelle Spahn, who currently shares a teaching position in Santa Cruz, Calif. emphasizes that job sharing benefits her not only on a personal level — the artist and web designer has plenty of time to spend on her creative pursuits — but on a professional level, as well. “When I started job sharing, my teaching got better,” she says. “When you work in isolation you don’t have anyone to bounce things off of. But with job sharing, our skills compliment and inspire each other.”
Cremona Wagner and Miller, through their work with Mission Job Share, have found that, with a little creative thinking, job sharing can be adapted to any work environment. “We could not find an area that a job share wouldn’t work,” Cremona Wagner says, listing doctors, nurses, and lawyers among some of the professions that have had successful job shares. “We just found that it doesn't work for all people.”
A successful job-sharing situation requires organization, commitment, unselfishness, and seamless communication. Both Cremona Wagner and Spahn stress the need for both partners to be clear, open, and honest in communicating everything from workday details down to personal problems and frustrations when they arise. Both partners need to know exactly what’s going on; and employers need to know that the communication is being handled by the team, that they don’t have to say everything twice. “The more organized you are,” says Spahn, “the better the job share is going to work.”
It is also imperative that the team is seen as a single entity by co-workers, employers, and the partners themselves. “You have to be interested in how the team looks,” says Cremona Wagner. “If, for one second, you’re interested more in how you look than how the team looks, then there’s just disaster waiting to happen.”
Cremona Wagner and Miller have a joint e-mail, voice mail, calendar, and IM. They communicate several times throughout the week to keep each other up-to-speed on what’s happening. “If you have a conversation with one of us, you can pick up where you left off with the other,” says Cremona Wagner. They also take great measures to insure the well-being of their partnership and they stress the importance of being treated exactly equal. From salaries and bonuses to benefits and reviews, they are 100% a team. “It’s very much like choosing a life partner,” says CremonaWagner. “That’s how important they are.”
While some employers already have job-sharing options in place, others are unfamiliar with the idea and may need to be enlightened as to how the arrangement can benefit everyone.
Here are a few tips on pitching a job share to an employer:
Familiarity: When possible, choose a partner that you’ve already worked with and know that you are compatible with. It can work out to be randomly placed with someone, but the odds are much better if you and your partner choose each other. Hiring someone as a consultant is a good way to find out how you work together.
Do the Legwork: Before you pitch the job share, have the details worked out. What’s the breakdown of days going to be? Detail how everything, from early morning meetings to weekend e-mails, will be covered; stress the commitment the team has to making it a win situation for everyone; and breakdown how benefits could be divided (some companies will give 100% benefits to both partners). Like the job share itself, preparation and clear, detailed communication is the key to a successful pitch.
Toot Your Horn: Detail the successes you’ve had in working together. Highlight that, although you’re two different people, you have common values and a commitment to the organization, your career, and job sharing. As Spahn says, “If you can make it work, you can pave the road for other people.”
As people look to mix a little more living into their lives, and employers realized that 60-hour work weeks are just not productive, the job-share model makes a lot of sense. “It’s an amazingly valuable situation for the company and employee,” says Cremona Wagner. “I couldn’t recommend job sharing more highly.” She then adds, “And you can consider that you had this conversation with both of us.”
Resources:
See the original article for lots of good resources on this topic
From Shareable.net
03.09.11
There’s something very cool happening in the workplace — people are re-claiming their lives. They’re creating a more humane work/life balance, they’re spending less time in the office, and, yet, their careers are thriving. How can this be? Two words: job sharing.
To best explain what job sharing is, let’s start with what it is not. It is not two people working part-time jobs in parallel. That’s just part-time work. Job sharing is two people, through shared responsibilities, identity, and accountability, occupying one position. They are a single unit, a team.
Laurie Cremona Wagner and Elaine Miller have been job-sharing, career partners for years. Throughout their career they have held several high-impact corporate positions and are currently Director of Marketing and Strategic Initiatives at EMC. The two women, both of whom have children, have been able to not only maintain, but further their careers while also having quality time to spend with their families. They have had such success with job sharing that, in 2008, they founded a Bay Area non-profit, Mission Job Share, to spread awareness and job-sharing resources.
“There’s no way that we would ever have had the kind of jobs we’ve had, that are really demanding, more than full-time positions, without job sharing,” says Cremona Wagner. “We’re not job sharing because we want to plateau our careers; we’re doing this because we want to accelerate and grow our careers.”
When thoughtfully executed, job sharing is a win for everyone involved — employees have the personal time that they need while maintaining their position in the company, and employers are able to retain high-performing individuals and glean the value of having two valuable (and not over-worked) people on their team.
And job sharing is not limited to the corporate world. Michelle Spahn, who currently shares a teaching position in Santa Cruz, Calif. emphasizes that job sharing benefits her not only on a personal level — the artist and web designer has plenty of time to spend on her creative pursuits — but on a professional level, as well. “When I started job sharing, my teaching got better,” she says. “When you work in isolation you don’t have anyone to bounce things off of. But with job sharing, our skills compliment and inspire each other.”
Cremona Wagner and Miller, through their work with Mission Job Share, have found that, with a little creative thinking, job sharing can be adapted to any work environment. “We could not find an area that a job share wouldn’t work,” Cremona Wagner says, listing doctors, nurses, and lawyers among some of the professions that have had successful job shares. “We just found that it doesn't work for all people.”
A successful job-sharing situation requires organization, commitment, unselfishness, and seamless communication. Both Cremona Wagner and Spahn stress the need for both partners to be clear, open, and honest in communicating everything from workday details down to personal problems and frustrations when they arise. Both partners need to know exactly what’s going on; and employers need to know that the communication is being handled by the team, that they don’t have to say everything twice. “The more organized you are,” says Spahn, “the better the job share is going to work.”
It is also imperative that the team is seen as a single entity by co-workers, employers, and the partners themselves. “You have to be interested in how the team looks,” says Cremona Wagner. “If, for one second, you’re interested more in how you look than how the team looks, then there’s just disaster waiting to happen.”
Cremona Wagner and Miller have a joint e-mail, voice mail, calendar, and IM. They communicate several times throughout the week to keep each other up-to-speed on what’s happening. “If you have a conversation with one of us, you can pick up where you left off with the other,” says Cremona Wagner. They also take great measures to insure the well-being of their partnership and they stress the importance of being treated exactly equal. From salaries and bonuses to benefits and reviews, they are 100% a team. “It’s very much like choosing a life partner,” says CremonaWagner. “That’s how important they are.”
While some employers already have job-sharing options in place, others are unfamiliar with the idea and may need to be enlightened as to how the arrangement can benefit everyone.
Here are a few tips on pitching a job share to an employer:
Familiarity: When possible, choose a partner that you’ve already worked with and know that you are compatible with. It can work out to be randomly placed with someone, but the odds are much better if you and your partner choose each other. Hiring someone as a consultant is a good way to find out how you work together.
Do the Legwork: Before you pitch the job share, have the details worked out. What’s the breakdown of days going to be? Detail how everything, from early morning meetings to weekend e-mails, will be covered; stress the commitment the team has to making it a win situation for everyone; and breakdown how benefits could be divided (some companies will give 100% benefits to both partners). Like the job share itself, preparation and clear, detailed communication is the key to a successful pitch.
Toot Your Horn: Detail the successes you’ve had in working together. Highlight that, although you’re two different people, you have common values and a commitment to the organization, your career, and job sharing. As Spahn says, “If you can make it work, you can pave the road for other people.”
As people look to mix a little more living into their lives, and employers realized that 60-hour work weeks are just not productive, the job-share model makes a lot of sense. “It’s an amazingly valuable situation for the company and employee,” says Cremona Wagner. “I couldn’t recommend job sharing more highly.” She then adds, “And you can consider that you had this conversation with both of us.”
Resources:
See the original article for lots of good resources on this topic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)