Guardian forum tonight: Energy and Environment

08.25.11 - 9:51 am | Tim Redmond |

(19)

We've got a great lineup for tonight's Guardian forum on Energy, Environment and Climate Change. I'll be moderating. The panelists are Antonio Diaz for PODER, Alicia Garza from POWER, former Supervisor Aaron Peskin and Saul Bloom from Arc Ecology. We'll be talking about energy policy, environmental racism, how climate change will impact the southeast neighborhoods, the privatization of public space, Treasure Island and a lot more.

It starts at 5:30 pm, in the Koret Auditorium at the main library in the Civic Center. Lots of time for audience participation. Hope to see you there.

Comments

Ah, so nobody from the energy business then?

That should ensure a well-balanced and objective debate.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 11:24 am

Right...because the Committee

Right...because the Committee on Jobs ALWAYS includes progressives, nonprofits, low-income, and other diverse opinions on THEIR panels!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

What you want is subject matter expertise

If non-profits and low income people were subject matter experts on job-creation then, sure, invite them.

But having a debate about energy without anyone who works in that field is self-defeating. Nobody will be challenged, so what's the point?

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

The point of these panels

Is not to debate energy policy with PG&E. It's to come up with a progressive platform for the next mayor. I think that's been very clear from the start.

Posted by tim on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

Shouldn't the platform have some connection to reality?

I understand what you're saying (platform committees are always for the purest - look at the Dem and Rep platforms) but shouldn't it have some connection to what can actually be accomplished?

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

Sister, clearly you don't understand the true purpose

of forums like this. They aren't to provide a balanced discourse. Nor to engage in any venture to discover the truth.

Rather, it's for a group of smug, self-satisfied partisan hacks to wallow in the glow of their mutual affectionate stroking, with nary a concern for any consideration of what is either reasonable or achieveable.

If any lobby group wants to have a love-in, then that's fine. Just don't dress it up as anything like a "forum", as that word pre-supposes some baseline level of neutrality and objectivity.

Posted by PaulT on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

pot.. kettle... black as night.....

Oh Pauly..! So slinky..!

You just described your own behavior on these -blogs- to a T!

It's good to know that you can also dance the limbo for me.

And you are so much easier to kiss when you're down there with the back of your regulation marine hair cut in the dirt.

<|;'>

Posted by vigilante on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

Please debate Paul's ideas and not personalize the issue

We're here to debate ideas and not to personalize issues, such as you're doing here in repeated attempts to bait Paul into responding to you.

This is contrary to The Guardian's new comment policy, which is designed to depersonalize the comments section and encourage a respectful, free flow of ideas. Since you appear to have no interest in adhering to this policy why don't Guardian staff remove your comments as they appear?

I support The Guardian's new policy and want everyone to adhere to this attempt to bring civility and respect to this forum. If you do not then don't post here.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

Sure, Snapples. Like when you call Peskin "Tiny"

" If Tiny Peskin is involved"
Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Jul. 29, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

You really love civility and respect don't you?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

Sister Snapples has turned over a new leaf

Since the new comments policy has been announced I have enjoyed spirited discourse over policy-related matters without personalizing the issues, and I would like everyone else to give it a try. I support the new policy and hope everyone else does as well.

Please refrain from personalizing this issue and comment subjectively.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

"Sister Snapples has turned

"Sister Snapples has turned over a new leaf"

Man, that's rich!

Based on your past behavior of mainly bile comments, you need to turn over more than a leaf. I think you need an entirely new tree (crown, trunk and roots). One leaf ain't going to do anything, not with that much bile. "Turning over a new leaf" for some people is about as effective as putting a band-aid on an erupting volcano. That band-aid would just get blown off. The root cause of the bile behavior must be addressed (has it been?....highly doubtful) and can't be addressed by merely speaking the words "turning over a new leaf." It's BS.

It's interesting that some of the most vile people on here who were/are the reason for the new comments policy in the first place, are now some of the same people who claim to like it and urge others to follow it, but they do so in an attempt to arrogantly try to serve as a "moderator" of others comments they don't like. That's their hidden agenda.

Their hypocrisy is so glaring!

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

I'm enjoying the new civility and I hope you do too

Spirited discussion is great, spirited, CIVIL discussion is even better!!

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

umm

Pot meet Kettle etc...

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

So you agree that Lucretia is a troll, eh Matlock?

Good.
The first step on the road to recovery for all of your Troll Headed personalities.

Now you just have to face up to the fact that YOU have no interest here on this site, other than to be a first class shit disturbing Troll with a broken record message:
"WAHHH! The Progressives are just as bad as the Conservatives!
WAHHH!
WAHH!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

Re: The privatization of public space

Wish I could be there.
This has turned into a real epidemic under Phil Ginsburg and Mark Buell at Rec and Park.
And Ed Lee certainly seems happy with it.

Let us know which candidates oppose this crap, and if we can look forward to someone firing Ginsburg and forcing Buell to step down.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

By creating parklets and closing streets

aren't we doing the very OPPOSITE of "privatizing public space?"

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

No. That is not the opposite of privatizing public space.

The opposite would be turning private property into public property.

Streets and parking spots are public spaces and some have had their use changed, but remain public property.
On the other hand, the sell out tools mentioned above (Ginsburg, Buell, Ed Lee, etc.) are steaming ahead with plans to give away portions of public parks to the highest bidders, including restaurants and retail shops, and charging the people of San Francisco an admission fee to enter parks they already pay for with their tax dollars.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 6:51 pm

OK thanks

That does clear it up a bit.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

No- Thank You! For all your civilitiees

in this new civility riddled era that we usher in now together as one with thoughtfulness and respect for all and god bless us everyone Tiny Tim Lucretia!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 8:28 pm