Saturday, August 29, 2009

OMNI book panel on the denial of global warming's reality September 18

Our Forum is almost complete, and I am sending this PR to KUAF soon. Let me know if you see anything needing correction. Videographer needed. Leonard and Aaron OK?
At end a letter from Sierra that emphasizes the importance of our Forum.



Sponsored by OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, and ECOLOGY



Ryan Bancroft: Chris Mooney, Unscientific America

Jonathan Gibbs: Mark Lynas, Six Degrees

Steve Boss: David Archer, The Long Thaw

Joanna Pollock: Larry Schweiger, Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth.

This OMNI Book Forum discusses the latest science-based scholarship explaining how the climate is breaking down with accelerating speed. Imagine inland United States average temperature a few degrees hotter within a few decades, with many states ravaged by mega-droughts and widespread wildfires, while our coasts drown from a increases in sea levels, which are climbing inches a decade. This Planetary Purgatory is the likely future facing our country before mid-century—probably in our own lifetime—if the politics of denial and delay that have triumphed so far continues for another decade. Most Americans and many policy makers and journalists still don’t understand how global warming will ruin America for the next fifty generations if we don’t act quickly
The widespread confusion about our climate crisis is no accident. For several decades, corporate and conservative religious deniers that climate change is an urgent problem have run a well-financed propaganda campaign to spread myths that misinform debate. The U. S. has never had an efficient energy system. The Bush administration muzzled government climate scientists. The highest ranks of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have misinformed the public. Media failed to explain science and the science of CO2 and warming (special sections in newspapers every week on Religion, with rare, small reports on science). Many environmentalists have been unfocused and timid. But the science is clear and has been clear for over three decades: We humans are the primary cause of global warming, and we face a bleak future if we fail to act quickly.
But that humans are the primary cause is also the primary hope: we can reverse the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and assert leadership to bring in every country. We have cost-effective technologies today that can sharply reduce global-warming pollution. California, for example, has embraced critical clean-energy strategies that if adopted nationwide would deliver vast benefits—a sharp drop in use of fossil fuels and therefore foreign-oil imports (and our massive trade deficits), a large gain in air quality and health, and a big boost in high-wage, high-tech jobs. But this hopeful future will happen only if the President and Congress join together to create a super-Manhattan Project (that built the atom bomb).
Time is short. We have at most a decade to sharply reverse course. If we fail to act in time, global warming will profoundly and irreversibly remake every aspect of American life. For example, no other nation has as much wealth along its shores. As catastrophic sea-level rises, we will be overwhelmed by urban triage—deciding which sea-side towns and cities can be saved. Katrina reveals what is to come for this country.
These books will put fire in your belly and set your hair on fire. (Dick from Hell and High Water).


Coordinator: Dick Bennett, 442-4600 (always glad to be replaced)

Moderator: Carl Barnwell

Greeter: Leonard Schulte

Publicity Campaign (using Dick’s Guide):

Photos: Aubrey Shepherd


Flyer and Poster:

Distribution of Flyer and Poster:
News Release (traditional): Dick
News Release (electronic): Aaron?
NEW BOOKS ON CLIMATE BREAKDOWN (thanks to Art for several annotations
Nightbird Books has a large display of these and related books.
This Forum focuses on the realities of warming, on the need 1) to return to 350 PPM CO2 in atmosphere 2) quickly. The books marked with an asterisk tentatively seem to be especially suitable.
*David Archer, The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing theNext 100,000 years of Earth's climate. This is somewhat science oriented, would be enjoyed by a scientist, engineer, etc. (Art) “This is the best book about carbon dioxide and climate change that I have read.” James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “Not only are massive climate changes coming if we humans continue on our current path, but many of these changes will last for millennia….This is the book for anyone who wishes to really understand what cutting-edge science tells us about the effects we are having, and will have, on our future climate.” Richard Alley. [Steve Boss]
*Tim Flannery. The Weather Makers. This is the first book I read about climate change. For example, I first learned there about the inevitable submersion of many Pacific islands. Interesting reading. (Dick)
Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: why we need a green revolution, and how it can renew America. Again, this book is more about energy and "being green" than about global warming. It sends out a good, positive message that most people can identify with. (Art)
Fred Krupp (Pres of Environmental Defense Fund) & Miriam Horn, Earth: the sequel. The race to reinvent energy and stop global warming. This book looks more at energy than it does at global warming, has lots of suggestions for alternative energy and energy conservation. (Art)
*James Lovelock. The Vanishing Face of Gaia A Final Warning. Basic Books, 2009. 288 pp Lovelock argues that climatic change is likely to lead to a hotter Earth able to sustain only a small fraction of the world's current population. Hot off the press. (Dick)
*Mark Lynas, Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet. For general readers, it will wake people up. It tells us what will happen with 1 degree of warming, then with 2 degrees, ...and finally with 6 degrees. By about 3 degrees, things are getting really bad. (Dick) [Jonathan Gibbs]
Arjun Makhijani, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. eRoad Map for U.S. Energy Policy: Creating a Carbon Free & Nuclear ... The Plan: We can eliminate carbon emissions from the US energy system by 2050 without relying on nuclear power, and we have a plan to do it! The Carbon-Free ... - [PPT] Carbon-Free and Nuclear Free File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. 17 February 2009. Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. 301-270-5500 ... - Similar Energy Policy, IEER's latest book, available free –
Bill McKibben. Fight Global Warming Now: The Handbook for Taking Action in Your Community. Holt, 2007.
*George Monbiot. Heat. This is the 2nd book I read on CO2 and planetary heating, and it had a stronger effect upon me then did Flannery’s probably because I was understanding the scientific discussions better, though some chapters were very slow going. Full of arresting stories; for example, his chapter on the extraordinary quantify of CO2 produced by airplanes came as a surprise, since I had only read about cars before. Monbiot has spoken and written repeatedly that the IPCC report and his own book are too optimistic, and I think he was the first I encountered to urge a change from “warming” to “breakdown.” (Dick)
*Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Basic Books, 2009. How religious ideologues, an education system weak in science, science-ignorant politicians, and the corporate media have collaborated to create this dangerous condition and how scientists have failed to counter it. [Ryan Bancroft] See: The Republican War on Science. “A well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right-wing’s assault on science and scientists.”
*Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water: The Global Warming Solution. Harper Perennial, 2007. Even though this books was published in 2007 (and therefore written in 2006), it seems up-to-date, and that, his book reveals, is because a scientific consensus about warming existed by 2006. The book is very clear reading, punctuated by gong after gong of reality. (Dick)
Eric Roston. The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Geratest Threat. Walker, 2008. A history of carbon, of carbon chemistry and chemists, and of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and climate breakdown. Packed with interesting anecdotes, interspersed with explanation of the developing science, and moments of powerful summation. For example, this explanation of why I was uneasy about the Weather Channel’s air quality reporting never mentioning CO2: “The invisibility of carbon dioxide emissions to the naked eye itself is part of the reason it has been so easy for deniers to confuse the public about dangerous man-made global warming for more than twenty years.”(172 in the midst of an account of Charles David Keeling’s CO2 research); and Keeling’s empirical proof of the rise of CO2: “When Keeling’s first apparatus was set up at Mauna Loa, the reading was 313pp. Today it has passed 383ppm….Up it goes, 2ppm a year or so, and accelerating.” (Dick)
*--Schweiger, Larry. Last Chance: Preserving Life on Earth. Fulcrum, 2009. The causes and effects of global warming on our ecosystems, human life, wildlife. “our best chance toward a future we will be proud to leave future generations,” Robert Redford. (Dick) [Joanna Pollock]
*James Speth. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Yale UP, 2008. I recall Art saying this is excellent. It explains why capitalism is a root cause of climate collapse. (Dick)
(If you want a step by step explanation of how to set up
Twitter here is the link for that. Twitter Activism Step-By-Step: )
-- The clearest succinct statement I as a general citizen have read recently about the accelerating dangers of climate breakdown is the editorial of The Nation (August 3/10, 2009), “The G-8 Abdicates.” . Here’s a sample: “Now comes the really bad news: we are already at 387 ppm. And at current rates atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are set to double by the middle of the century, resulting in catastrophic rise in sea levels,” which would “utterly transform civilization as we know it,” unless “emissions are drastically reduced soon.” The Nation recommends three solutions: 1) the rich nations “must cut their carbon emissions radically and quickly,” 2) they “must spend enormous sums of money to subsidize the transformation of developing economies away from coal and oil toward carbon-neutral forms of green energy,” and 3)”there must be massive investment in developing alternative energy sources.” (Also see Sharon Begley, “Climate-Change Calculus: Why It’s Even Worse Than We Feared,” Newsweek, August 3, 2009, about the surprises scientists have experienced recently regarding the unexpected worsening of Arctic sea ice loss, of Greenland mass loss, of permafrost melting, and more. “Given the pathetic response to global warming, skepticism that the world will get its act together seems appropriate.”) The media are waking up and speaking out against the deniers, delayers, and scammers.
Thanks, Dick

Dear Dick,
Tell Companies to Demand the US Chamber of Commerce Stop Denying Global Warming
We've rallied, we've sent messages to the EPA, and we've shown that Americans overwhelmingly support a clean energy economy that creates jobs and fights global warming.
Now the US Chamber of Commerce wants to silence us by threatening to sue the EPA in an effort to put "the science of climate change on trial." This ridiculous and dangerous stunt is engineered to undermine the EPA's authority to fight global warming, which we fought so hard to support.
Send a message to US Chamber of Commerce member companies telling them that this case is closed--responsible businesses know climate change is real and that we need to do something about it now.
The Chamber of Commerce already had an opportunity to air any legitimate concerns when the EPA held a 60 day comment period on its finding that global warming poses a threat to our health and welfare.
Where was the Chamber of Commerce then?
The Chamber wants to pretend that the 41,000 comments we collected supporting the EPA were never written, that the 2,000 people who rallied at the hearing in Seattle never showed up, and that the people speaking out in favor of action to fight global warming at the hearing in Arlington, VA did not out number the skeptics by 9 to 1.
It's time to tell responsible companies to stop letting a handful of polluters use the Chamber of Commerce to hold our Country hostage to last century's dirty energy technology--Sign the petition today!
Earlier this year, a group of big companies like Nike and Johnson and Johnson sent a letter to the Chamber asking them to more accurately reflect the majority of American businesses who are well aware that the science of global warming is settled, and who want to move the U.S. into a cleaner energy future.
But it seems the Chamber is siding with a minority of polluting energy companies, even though it is now clear that reducing global warming emissions is good for both the economy and the environment.
Sign our petition to these responsible companies urging them to back up their words with action--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce needs to come to its senses and side with the majority of its members who support action on global warming, or these companies should resign their memberships.
Thanks for all that you do to protect the environment.
Mary Anne Hitt
Sierra Club Big Picture Campaign
P.S. After signing up, please forward this message to a friend! Chamber companies need to hear our message loud and clear.
Sierra Club
85 Second St.
San Francisco, CA 94105

Dick Bennett

Friday, August 14, 2009

Carbon Caps Task Force to meet at 1:30 p.m. Sunday, August 16, 2009, at OMNI's office in the usual place on Maple Avenue

Dear CCTF,

We will be having a meeting this Sunday, August 16th, at 1:30 PM in the UCM down under area, OMNI's usual, though now only temporary, abode. Please come if you are able.
Attached, you will find the meeting's agenda.
We will discuss CCTF's direction, with a heavy focus on action, and then delegate the concrete (or, more appropriately, green) tasks that arise from our discussion. Join in guiding our city and nation's future!
Hope to see you there!
Ryan Bancroft
(479) 799-9065

Monday, August 10, 2009

PSC chairman spins threat of major ratepayer costs if coal-fired plant not built

Gladys - I believe it was you who asked, at the CCTF meeting a week ago, what was the effect and the status of the recent Ark Appeal Court's judgement against the Turk coal plant. This rather long article is a pretty complete answer to that question. Cheers - Art

Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:00:00 -0500
Subject: Fw: PSC Chairman Suskie comments on court of appeals ruling of SWEPCO
Turk plant - Ark Business
Swepco Ratepayers Could Be on Hook for Cost of Turk Plant

PSC Chairman Paul Suskie: "If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period."

By Jamie Walden

"If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period. Whether it's a solar farm, a wind farm, you're going to have to have, I think, amendments to law," Suskie said. "Because of the way the Court of Appeals interpreted it, you would have to have a fundamental rewrite."

Swepco Ratepayers Could Be on Hook for Cost of Turk Plant
By Jamie Walden - 8/10/2009
If Southwestern Electric Power Co. can't complete its embattled John W. Turk Jr. coal-fired power plant in Hempstead County, Swepco customers in Arkansas and elsewhere could be on the hook for more than $876 million.
The case, now on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, appears to hinge on three major issues, one of which could permanently alter the approval process for power plants in Arkansas.
In early 2007, three private hunting clubs and a family trust launched an offensive on the Turk plant, claiming it would harm the environment. In June, the plaintiffs won their case in the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The argument by Hempstead County Hunting Club Inc., Po-Boy Land Co. Inc., Yellow Creek Corp. and Shultz Family Management Co. targeted the approval procedure by the Arkansas Public Service Commission and simultaneously argued that Swepco didn't adequately document a need for the Turk plant or its evaluation of alternative locations.

The PSC regulates the construction and location of power plants under the Utility Facility Environmental & Economic Protection Act of 1973. A company must obtain a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility & Public Need, or CECPN, to build a plant.
The PSC also wields the authority to approve the transmission lines that transport the power generated by the plant.
Ever since legislators wrote the utility act in 1973, the PSC has interpreted the method of handing down these approvals in one consistent way. But recently the Arkansas Court of Appeals said the PSC has been doing it wrong all this time.
The contentious clause grants the Public Service Commission exclusive and final jurisdiction "for the expeditious resolution of all matters concerning the location, financing, construction and operation of electric generating plants and electric and gas transmission lines and associated facilities in a single proceeding."
The PSC has, for the past 36 years, interpreted the "single proceeding" to mean an issue is heard solely by the commission. "Not in a district court or a circuit court here, not in front of one state agency here, have it all in one place," PSC Chairman Paul Suskie said.
Furthermore, the use of the word "and" in that construction - "electric generating plants and electric and gas transmission lines and associated facilities" - has led the PSC to handle the construction of a plant in one docket and the transmission lines in another docket. Despite the division of those hearings, the PSC thought it was following the law because the proceeding was held by one body.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals, however, interpreted that phrase to mean the plant construction, transmission lines and associated facilities should all be part of one hearing.
"Piecemeal consideration of all the matters concerning a generating plant and its transmission lines corrupts the spirit and letter of the law," the appellate court wrote.
Suskie said that Ed Dillon, an attorney with Entergy in 1973 who helped the PSC staff write the legislation, filed the first application for the White Bluff coal-powered plant in Redfield just months after the legislation was passed. Dillon, with first-hand knowledge of the law, separated the plant application from the transmission lines application.
"It's pretty compelling to me when the attorneys that wrote the law then months later apply it that way," Suskie said.
The Court of Appeals disagreed and was unmoved by the "we've always done it this way" argument.
"Significantly, the APSC's procedure of separating generating plants from transmission lines in CECPN proceedings has never been challenged in a court proceeding. The mere fact that the practice has gone unchallenged cannot create a presumption that it is proper," the appellate court wrote.
Suskie said the PSC contemplated the transmission lines in the first proceeding, but didn't approve the transmission line sites until the second hearing. However, he said that in the first proceeding to approve the plant, the PSC dictated certain rules that Swepco must follow when siting the transmission lines.
The PSC addressed the transmission lines "on the front end because in the orders, we put conditions upon it. And some of those conditions were, 'You could not run transmission lines over sensitive areas and the interveners' property,'" Suskie said.
In this case, the hunting clubs were some of those interveners.
The determination of the sites where the transmission lines would run, however, occurred during a different proceeding. And the plaintiffs argued that affected parties, such as property owners, should know the whole plan, including the sites of the transmission lines, before a plant is approved.
Part of the commission's duty, though, is to make the process "as expeditious as possible." Separating the hearings does just that, Suskie said.
"If you did all those at once, it would extend the time frame. ... It could easily run two years, but the statute requires the Arkansas commission to do it as 'expeditiously as possible,'" Suskie said.

"In the way this case was handled, the Turk plant was approved. And then after it was approved, [Swepco] continued with the processes for approvals, the air permit and so forth. Well, after that took place, we were still in the process of siting the transmission lines."
The PSC approved the Turk plant in November 2007, and then finally gave the nod to the plant's transmission lines in January.
The division of hearings can also be convenient for out-of-state businesses. Because a plant, depending on the size, can often take longer to build than the laying of transmission lines, the time needed to bring an operation online is shorter if a business can start earlier on the plant.
A Question of Need
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the question of whether two PSC proceedings complies with the law - if, that is, the high court chooses to hear the case when it reconvenes after Labor Day - the plaintiffs still allege there is no need for the Turk plant. And proving need is one of the first hoops through which a utility provider must jump before getting a CECPN.
Charles Nestrud of Chisenhall Nestrud & Julian PA of Little Rock, which represents the groups challenging the project, pointed to Swepco's market in Texas.
Because transmission lines for the Turk plant cross state lines, Swepco also had to present its case before public service commissions in Texas and Louisiana.
"Swepco's need has deteriorated. In the Texas proceeding, they couldn't project that they needed this power plant because the need had evaporated," Nestrud said. "If you look at their latest [annual report], their wholesale sales are down, their retail sales are down."
Paul Chodak, president and chief operating officer of Swepco, disputed the notion that the need for the Turk plant had disappeared.
"Now, have we seen an economic downturn? Sure, we've seen an economic downturn. But we're building this plant to last the next 40 years, really the next 60 years," Chodak said. "So what the economy does in a two-year time frame is not the basis by which you build a plant."
Nestrud also contended that a natural gas plant makes more fiscal and environmental sense than a coal plant.
"We believe that now with the cost of this plant having escalated the way it has, with the gas prices having decreased below anybody's projections, and with the cost of carbon-capture for coal plants, this plant could never survive in a cost comparison of alternatives," Nestrud said.
Chodak said Swepco aims for energy diversity with a current portfolio of 60 percent coal plants and 40 percent natural gas facilities.
"To point to one summer where natural gas prices are low - and I'm sure they're forecasted to stay low into the future - I would urge you to go back and look at what gas prices were last year," Chodak said.
"The certainty about forecasts is that they are wrong. I don't know if they are wrong high or if they're wrong low."
Alternative Locations
Finally, the Court of Appeals cried foul at the treatment of alternative locations during the process.
"Swepco's application states that the Hempstead site was selected because it was large enough to accommodate the facility, had water supply, had nearby rail access, and had a property owner willing to sell," the appellate court wrote. "The other sites were not mentioned.
"Staff witness Clark Cotton admitted that Swepco's [environmental impact statement] did not contain a description of the comparative merits and detriments of each alternative location as required" by a section of the utility act.
Plaintiffs' attorney Nestrud agreed. "They didn't look at need and compare that to environmental impacts and to alternatives that were available. So when all that occurs, I don't agree that it's a forgone conclusion that they're going to get a certificate."
Court of Appeals Judge Josephine Linker Hart, in her concurring opinion, addressed what has become a major point of controversy in the case: why the "mostly idle" Union Power Station plant in El Dorado, owned by Entegra Power Group LLC, wasn't considered as an alternative location.

Suskie said that Entegra didn't bid on the Arkansas project and thereby fulfill certain requirements held by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. For the past 10 years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has required utilities to plan by region because transmission lines cross state borders, multiple states are involved in approving a project like the Turk plant.
"The [Louisiana commission] asked for proposals to meet that need, and Entegra never bid."
Arkansas and Texas didn't require Swepco to solicit bids.
Entegra later tried to intervene in the Arkansas docket. Though Suskie wasn't on the PSC at the time, he said the commission saw that move by Entegra as an attempt to block a competitor from entering the market.
"They didn't bid at the proper time. And then they wanted to intervene in the Arkansas docket essentially to block the plant from being built because it's competition," Suskie said.
Holding the Bag
Although Swepco, which has 113,500 customers in Arkansas, has the most cash in play, other parties stand to be affected by the outcome of the case.
The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp., which has about 490,000 Arkansas customers, has a 12 percent ownership stake in the plant.
If the Supreme Court takes on the case and sides with the Court of Appeals, Swepco would be forced to restart what has been a multiple-year application process. And if plaintiffs' attorney Nestrud is right and Swepco can't demonstrate a need for the plant this time around, customers would be left holding the $876 million bag.
According to Swepco's most recent quarterly report, the company would seek to increase its rates to recoup $136 million in contract termination fees plus whatever it has invested in the plant thus far. Swepco had spent more than $740 million as of last week on the Turk plant, spokeswoman Kacee Kirschvink said.
"If the Turk Plant cannot be completed and placed in service, Swepco would seek approval to recover its prudently incurred capitalized construction costs including any cancellation fees and a return on unrecovered balances through rates in all of its jurisdictions," the filing states.
So what are the possible outcomes? Suskie said the Supreme Court could kick the case back to the PSC for more hearings, uphold the PSC's procedure or support the appellate court's decision.
"If the Court of Appeals' ruling stands, I don't see how a plant can get built anywhere in the state of Arkansas, period. Whether it's a solar farm, a wind farm, you're going to have to have, I think, amendments to law," Suskie said. "Because of the way the Court of Appeals interpreted it, you would have to have a fundamental rewrite."

Gathering at old courthouse to demonstrate Arkansas' attitude on threat of climate change

Location is College and Mountain Streets in front of old Courthouse.

From: Gladys tiffany
Subject: Beach Party for climate change Monday at noon
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 9:49 PM

Hi OMNI folks...
Bring your beach towel to the
Beach Party for Climate Change
Monday, August 10, 12:00 noon

Please, let's not let the teabaggers take the spotlight on this critical issue.
If you have questions call Ryan Boswell at 479-284-1933.

Gladys Tiffany
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 --

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Sunday and Monday feature big events for OMNI Center advocates for the earth

Please click on image to ENLARGE:

Astute people have told me to mention that the beach party is on Monday August 10th. Sorry to have missed that detail.

Gladys Tiffany
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 --

Beach Party for Climate Change
Near Blanche Lincoln's Office
12:00 noon - College and Mountain Streets

So Blanche Lincoln doesn't like cap and trade? Sure would be nice if we could give her a second opinion. Next Monday at noon the 1Sky Network will be holding a rally to say "It's getting hot in Arkansas". If you're brave enough for beach wear, you can come dressed for global warming. If that's too risque, wear a parka instead... or both. It's good to be prepared.

Anyway, the word is sifting around that our local teabaggers (low-tax advocates with loud voices) are planning to counter-demonstrate. It'd be such a bummer if there were more teabaggers then earth advocates. Can you take an hour off for the earth? If you have questions hit reply, or talk to 1Sky State Director Ryan Denham at This is too important an issue to leave to teabaggers. Jish.

Gladys Tiffany

Monday, August 3, 2009

Green Faith Alliance of Central Arkansas to meet by telephone with like-minded or curious Northwest Arkansas residents at UA business school

The Green Faith Alliance of Central Arkansas will meet with us by
telephone on Monday, August 3, at 5:30 pm. Our meeting will be held in
Willard J. Walker Hall, room 546 (fifth floor) on the Business School Campus area at the
University. Attached are directions (from I-540) to the Harmon
parking garage, which is directly across from Walker Hall. The cost
to park there is about $3 for an hour.
As you may recall from my previous email, we talked briefly about the
possibility of having a Green Faith Alliance of Arkansas (dropping the
word “central”) instead of forming a second group called Green Faith
Alliance of Northwest Arkansas. This way, there would be one group,
instead of two, and we might accomplish more by working together than
we can separately.
I am currently on vacation in Georgia. Vivian Hill from St. Paul’s
will be your host for this meeting.
Please RSVP accept or regret to Vivian at as
soon as you can.
We hope that you will be able to join us for this meeting. Again, the
details are:
· Monday, August 3rd
5:30 pm
Willard J Walker Hall, Room 546, U of A Campus
Many thanks to you and thanks for your ministry for the planet that we share.
Michele Halsell

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Carbon Caps Task Force meeting at 1:30 p.m. today at the OMNI Center office downstairs at 902 W. Maple

Sunday August 2
1:30 pm
Carbon Caps Task Force
Re-Organizing Meeting
OMNI office
United Campus Ministries 902 W. Maple (Maple Street & Storer Avenue)
Several interesting options for action are emerging. Come find out how you can plug in, because you are needed. And meet OMNI's new environmental organizer, Ryan Bancroft. And Robert McAfee will bring lemon cake. You don't want to miss this meeting.
Gladys Tiffany
Omni Center for Peace, Justice & Ecology
Fayetteville, Arkansas USA
479-973-9049 --