[WEC-Env] Runoff and Emissions in our Env. Committee Oct 24 report

[Mary O'Brien]

Hi, all,


I hear agreement that the bulk of our Oct 24 report (and our only maps) will deal with 
(1) rare habitats/biodiversity (protection, restoration, mitigation) and 
(2) permeable/impermeable soils.

Gary Wildish says he will present (2).  Jan, would you like to present (1)?  Anyone else on the Env. Committee if not Jan?

However, I believe that ONE MINUTE should be used mention that 
(3) runoff (better term than “toxics”); and (4) greenhouse gas emissions (better term than “global warming”) have been raised within the Environment Committee but that we have not yet figured out how best to bring these forward to the larger Collaboration.  

[The fact is they ARE environmental issues related to land use and transportation (e.g., 40% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions are from vehicles) and they HAVE been raised as a concern. Committees must not simply silence an issue that has been raised as a concern by some members. Instead, Collaborative groups figure out how the Collaboration will deal with  issues of concern raised by members.  It may be that after a full discussion, the Collaborative will decide that there is no feasible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  But it isn’t helpful to threaten with statements such as “If this topic is included [as a discussion item, presumably], you are LOSING me.”]


My suggestion is that since we haven’t figured out how best to bring these two issues to the Collaborative, we should just mention that we’re working on that and will get back to the Collaborative. And then in our next Environment Task Force meeting after the Oct. 24-25 meeting, we can have that as a discussion topic.   Does that sound ok?

Perhaps John Huyler has a suggestion for how we might approach this after the Oct. 24-25 meeting? (See attached notes of our earlier discussions about runoff and emissions and issues associated with them).

Mary



On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:57:07 -0700, "Larry Reed" <LarryReed at jrhweb.com> wrote:
> I agree with Gary, this topic is too global to address as part of one
> section of our community and will nothing to help us solve -coming to
> consensus on a plan for west Eugene. I'm supportive of the environmental
> goals but not because they are part of addressing climate change. If
> this topic is included you are LOSING me.
> Larry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wec_env_com at westeugenecollaborative.org
> [mailto:wec_env_com at westeugenecollaborative.org] On Behalf Of Gary
> Wildish
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM
> To: 'Mary O'Brien'; wec_env_com at westeugenecollaborative.org
> Subject: Re: [WEC-Env] Our Envt Committee Presentation:DRAFT
> "messages"attached
> 
> All,
> I am fine with being a part of the presentation. I will start working on
> some comments for the Soils & Hydrology portion. I would agree that
> global warming and toxins are environmental issues, but I am less
> convinced that they are specific to the WEC's area of focus. I think
> that a few comments relating to global warning and toxins will not
> distract from our report. If we open the door too widely we may find
> that the WEC might get bogged down and will not be able to come to
> consensus on these issues. 
> 	Just a few thoughts,
> 	Gary  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wec_env_com at westeugenecollaborative.org
> [mailto:wec_env_com at westeugenecollaborative.org] On Behalf Of Mary
> O'Brien
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:04 PM
> To: wec_env_com at westeugenecollaborative.org
> Subject: [WEC-Env] Our Envt Committee Presentation:DRAFT "messages"
> attached
> 
> Hi, all (from Ontario, OR):
> 
> Attached is a draft of our messages. I've tried to capture what we
> discussed. Any suggested changes should be based on what we all seemed
> to agree on, yes?  Fifteen minutes will go FAST, so we can't really add
> much MORE, but you all may have suggestions for making it more accurate
> as to what we discussed.
> 
> Once we agree on messages, by email we could also decide who presents
> what.  How about Jan Wostmann and Gary Wildish splitting the
> presentation? ---would be good to have folks that haven't talked that
> much in meetings; we'd all be there to help answer any questions, e.g.,
> about the data for the maps)
> 
> Then maybe on Oct. 19, those who are presenting could do a run-through
> so we could check that it fits in 15 minutes;  and make any suggestions.
> 
> We'd probably have a handout summarizing everything, with the URL for
> the maps on the WEC website and giving details on the field trip Nov.
> 19?
> 
> I think it will be good to get all four issues out on the table --- only
> takes a minute to present the last two, but then the Collaboration won't
> feel blind-sided when they get raised later.
> 
> Wednesday night is the last time I might be on email until next Tuesday.
> But then again, I might be at a motel with internet.  Even Ute-ah has
> that!
> 
> 
> M
> 
> P.S., You might be interested in the Sept. 28 San Francisco Chronicle
> story, 
> 
> "Senators hear ideas for reducing Bay Area traffic congestion" at
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/28/BADKSFUKO.DT
> L 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wec_env_com mailing list
> wec_env_com at westeugenecollaborative.org
> http://www.designcommunity.com/mailman/listinfo/wec_env_com
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised_Task_List.Sept_19.doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 68096 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/wec_env_com/attachments/20071010/9536156c/attachment-0001.bin