On February 19, the City Council voted to approve Resolution No. 68,766-N.S., a recommendation from the Peace and Justice Commission (PJC) that Berkeley cease investing City funds in "any entity involved in the production or upgrading of weapons." It was a historic vote against war and militarism and the vote was unanimous. 

The PJC initiative was based on a model resolution drafted by the Divest from the War Machine coalition—a nationwide community of more than 50 peace organizations, including Peace Action USA, CODEPINK, American Friends Service Committee, United for Peace and Justice and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. 

The Divest coalition offered the following arguments for (1) debunking the false narrative of US military exceptionalism and (2) de-bucking the military-industrial complex that sustains it: 

In 2017, the US spent more than $700 billion on the Pentagon and its programs. More than $300 billion of that went to weapons manufacturers and war profiteers. That's $300 billion of our tax dollars going to line the pockets of CEOs who are profiting from war around the world and at home. In 2017, the CEOs of the top five weapons manufacturers in the US collected salaries that totaled $996 million, while American communities continue to struggle to provide basic services as federal support is slashed.  

For perspective: $1 billion in military spending creates approximately 11,200 jobs. That same $11 billion would create 26,700 jobs in education, 16,800 in clean energy, and 17,200 in health care.  

So why are we using public dollars to subsidize these corporations, at the expense of what our local communities need? 

The military and its contractors are also some of the worst polluters in the world.  

Standard controls, such as bans on open-air burning and compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, are routinely circumvented or categorically ignored. These actions jeopardize the health and economy of local waterways, and poison local air.  

Our communities can take back the power of the purse, and pull their support from those who seek to do harm and profit from harm inflicted upon others. We do not have to put public support behind those who are making a killing on killing. 

The PJC persuasively argued that "reversing militarism is one of the key levers of promoting sustainability" and cited the 2003 proclamation from Environmentalists Against War that "War destroys human settlements and native habitats. War destroys wildlife and contaminates the land, air and water. The damage can last for generations." 

One Significant Revision 

Two changes were made to the model resolution. The first simply defined the meaning of the word "weapons." It read as follows: 

"Add a Whereas clause to define weapons to read as follows: 

WHEREAS, Weapon is defined as any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon; anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim; and Weapons Systems is defined as any integrated system, usually computerized, for the control and operation of weapons of a particular kind." 

One last pothole remained in the path to approving the model legislation. According to PJC minutes, City staff raised an objection that the resolution, as written, could "pose problems with procurement." 

The concern was that PJC's updating of the model resolution would have prevented the City from purchasing bullets, guns, and other weapons for the Berkeley Police Department. That provision proved to be "a bridge too far" and, during its January 7 meeting, the PJC revised the resolution by removing "the ban on contracting with entities involved in the production or upgrading of weapons" and confining the resolution's scope "to the investment of City funds in such entities." 

As it now stands, the City can buy tasers, rifles, and tear-gas grenades directly from the manufacturers but cannot invest any City funds in the companies that profit from the production of the weapons. Put another way, tax dollars can buy the BPD a stock for a Remington rifle but the cash can't be invested in actual Remington stocks. 

Here is the wording of the revision: 

"Revise the first Resolved clause to read as follows: 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley will not invest City funds in weapons manufacturers, and decides that it shall be City policy to divest from such entities." 

Here is the complete-and-untweaked earlier version of the full resolution: 

Berkeley Divestment Resolution  

Resolution declaring the City of Berkeley will not invest City funds in any entity involved in the production or upgrading of weapons. 

WHEREAS, since 2001, the United States has spent over $5.6 trillion on wars resulting in over 1.17 million deaths and displacing more than 10.1 million people; [1] and 

WHEREAS, the cost of US domestic and foreign militarism, including veterans' affairs, homeland security, and law enforcement, and incarceration, topped $818 billion in 2017, [2]; and accounted for 64% of federal discretionary spending in 2016, at a time when federal funds are desperately needed in order to build affordable housing, improve public transit, and develop sustainable energy sources; [3] and 

WHEREAS, the United States remains the most militarized nation in the world, with a military budget greater than the next eight countries combined, an estimated 800 military bases and stations in over 70 countries around the world, and arms producers that dominated 57.9% of the share of major global arms sales in 2016 [4]; and 

WHEREAS, nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons, most of an order of magnitude more 

powerful that the US atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over 90% held by the United States and Russia, continue to pose an intolerable threat to humanity; [5] and detonation of even a small fraction of these weapons would disrupt the global climate and agricultural production so severely that the resulting famine could put the lives of more than two billion people at risk; [6] and 

WHEREAS, the United States is poised to spend $1.7 trillion dollars over the next three decades to maintain and modernize its nuclear bombs and warheads; the submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them; and the infrastructure to sustain the nuclear enterprise indefinitely, which many experts believe actually increases the risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear war by accident, miscalculation or intent, at a time when nuclear-armed countries are already on the brink of military confrontation; [7] and 

WHEREAS, investing in companies producing the nuclear and conventional weapons at the roots of US militarism implicitly supports this misdirection of our tax dollars; and 

WHEREAS, many major arms producers depend on the federal government as their primary consumer and are thus dependent upon perpetual warfare, political instability, and the prioritization of militarism over diplomacy; and 

WHEREAS, US weapons manufacturers continue to supply repressive regimes around the world, and US-produced weapons are being used in attacks that the international community deems unlawful for their disproportionate and excessive harm to civilians; and 

WHEREAS, billions of dollars worth of military-grade equipment has been transferred to local police departments in our communities, resulting in the disproportionate targeting of communities of color and perpetuating a culture of violence, hostility, and fear; [8] and 

WHEREAS, the rate of mass shootings in America is the highest anywhere in the 

developed world, as civilian gun manufacturers continue to reap enormous profits from unnecessary bloodshed in our streets and homes; [9] and 

WHEREAS, the average American taxpayer works 27 days a year to pay Pentagon contractors and pays 23.4 cents of each of their federal income tax dollars toward military spending, at a time when 43 million Americans live in poverty or qualify as low-income; [10] and 

WHEREAS, the US Conference of Mayors unanimously "calls on the President and Congress to reverse federal spending priorities and to redirect funds currently allocated to nuclear weapons and unwarranted military spending to restore full funding for Community Development Block Grants and the Environmental Protection Agency, to create jobs by rebuilding our nation's crumbling infrastructure, and to ensure basic human services for all, including education, environmental protection, food assistance, housing and health care; [11] and 

WHEREAS, the City's investment practices must accord with the City's commitment to equality, peace, and justice; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council formally declares its opposition to investing City funds in any entities that are involved in the production or upgrading of weapons and weapons systems, whether conventional or nuclear, and including the manufacture of civilian arms, and decides that it shall be City policy to divest from such entities; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs any and all persons acting on behalf of City investment activity to enforce the provisions of this Resolution; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be binding City policy and shall be in full force and effect after adoption by the City Council. 

Sources: 

1 "Costs of War," Brown University, Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs," 

2 "US Military Budget: Components, Challenges, Growth," The Balance, 

3 "The Militarized Federal Budget," National Priorities, 

4 "Top 100 Arms-Producing and Military Service Companies, 2016," Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 

5 "Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance," Arms Control Association, 

6 "Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk?" International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, 

7 "US Nuclear Modernization Program," Arms Control Association, 

8 "War Comes Home," ACLU, 

9 "How US Gun culture compares with the world in 5 charts," CNN, 10 "Tax Dollar Receipt," National Priorities Project, 

11 "Calling on the Administration and Congress to Step Back From the Brink and Exercise Global Leadership in Preventing Nuclear War," US Conference of Mayors, June 11, 2018, 

Postscript 

A parting thought: I'm not a lawyer, but I'm suddenly wondering if the revision of the resolution might technically open the door for Berkeley police to be armed with swords and cannon. 

Berkeley is continually promoting itself as a leader, a city of innovation, ahead of the pack and occasionally it is. On June 12, 2018, Berkeley did declare a Climate Emergency and passed a resolution to be Fossil Fuel Free by 2030. The Declaration even made Fox Business News commentary The problem is follow-through.

Saturday, February 23 at the well-attended “Can Berkeley be a Livable City for All?” forum sponsored by the Berkeley Neighborhood Council, Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Planning Director Timothy Burroughs would lead you to believe there is a communication problem not an action problem. Let’s pull back the curtain.

On Tuesday, February 26, the same day San Francisco Supervisors will vote to put forward their Climate Emergency Resolution, the Berkeley City Council will vote on Mayor Arreguin’s agenda item #22 to retire the Ad Hoc Climate Emergency Subcommittee.

Rather than retiring this important committee, the Mayor should be expanding the mission of the Climate Emergency Ad Hoc Subcommittee to be the center of communicating, informing, educating and engaging our community into action. If communication is the problem, then dissolving the Climate Emergency Subcommittee, which is establishing a network of regional and local climate organizations and community activists, is contrary to addressing the identified “communication problem” with the public—or maybe... community engagement is the problem that doesn’t need to be fixed.

I strongly support Berkeley's efforts to accelerate our actions to address the climate emergency. I was proud to vote for the June 2018 resolution to officially declare a "climate emergency", and supported the regional Town Hall which was held in August 2018 to discuss solutions. The Council's Ad-Hoc Climate Emergency Subcommittee was originally formed to organize this regional Town Hall and to discuss ways to deepen efforts to fight climate change.

Since that time, the Berkeley City Council has created a new system of Policy Committees. One of the committees, the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment and Sustainability Committee was specifically established to discuss issues around energy efficiency, transportation, green building and climate action. This would be the best place to discuss many of the policy proposals put forward by community members, including moving our energy procurement to 100% renewable. I appreciate the work of the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, and believe now is the time to continue the discussion at the new Facilities and Environment Committee. Councilmember Cheryl Davila, the author of the Climate Emergency resolution, was appointed to serve on this committee, and I hope that she will continue to convene community members and experts in developing ways to address the cataclysmic crisis of climate change.  

In addition to this Ad-Hoc Committee, Berkeley has advanced several policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move us to a resilient, energy independent future. At the Global Climate Action Summit this past September, Berkeley set a bold goal to reach 100% renewable electricity citywide by 2035 and achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. In addition, the City of Berkeley has signed on to an electric vehicle purchasing initiative that will provide access to reduced-cost clean energy vehicles and infrastructure and has joined a group of Bay Area cities calling for a ban on the transport of coal through their jurisdictions. We are also exploring requiring a shift from natural gas to electrification, implementing our Deep Green Building initiative to move towards zero net energy construction, adopted a ban on Single Use Disposable Plastic food ware, expanding our bicycle infrastructure, adopted legislation to expand urban farming and food access, and promoting mandatory solar on new buildings. Additionally, the new East Bay Community Energy Authority presents an exciting opportunity to move our energy to 100% renewable sources, and the City Council will soon take up a proposal to opt-up our residential and city accounts to higher renewable content.  

The work does not stop at a Subcommittee meeting, but is being lead by my office and many members of the Council. Community partnerships are essential in continuing this important work. I believe that by working with the Berkeley Climate Action Coalition and many environmental leaders who make Berkeley home, we can continue to show how Berkeley can lead to addressing the biggest challenge of our time.  

 

48 Hills, the San Francisco online news source, recently ran this article by Berkeley journalist Zelda Bronstein which East Bay Sierra Club members should check out:

---

The Sierra Club and the luxury-housing developer

Northern Alameda chapter backs San Leandro project in a sign that the pro-growth forces are trying to take over the environmental group.

Are you a Sierra Club member who lives in Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville, Alameda, Piedmont or San Leandro? If so, you fall under the aegis of the club’s Northern Alameda County Group, which is nested within the larger Bay Chapter.

Be aware, then, that the NAC Executive Committee is currently dominated by a pro-growth coterie that’s exploiting the Sierra Club’s cachet to push a pro-development agenda that violates the club’s commitments to affordable housing, neighborhood integrity, and democratic governance.

Read the rest of the story on 48 Hills:

---

After the article was posted, the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter posted an entry on its home page blog attacking it. The response from 48 Hills is posted here.  

Bordering on Insanity

Isn't it odd (not to mention blindingly hypocritical) that Trump complains about a fictitious "threat" to America's southern border while simultaneously threatening to launch a full-bore military invasion by sending US troops across the border of Venezuela? When it comes to "threats to borders," who poses the greater danger—poor migrant families seeking asylum or heavily armed US troops seeking to control Venezuela's oil and minerals?

A few notes from the must-read Venezuela Fact Sheet (Standard disclaimer: "Maduro may not be the world's best politician, but still . . . ."):

Fiction: President Maduro was not legitimately elected.

Fact: Maduro won the Presidential election with a greater majority (68% of the vote) and backed by a greater majority of the population than any recent US president. In that election (which was judged legitimate by international observers), the US-backed candidates lost decisively and Juan Guaido's faction didn't even participate.

Fiction: The Maduro government in Venezuela is about to fall.

Fact: The elected government of Venezuela retains the loyalty of the majority of the people and of the military despite US-imposed economic sanctions, blackmail and threats.

 

 

The Bill that Could Stop The Donald 

Win Without War sends a troubling message: "Trump just declared that 'all options are open' in Venezuela. That’s as clear as it gets: He’s threatening military intervention." 

The US has a long and shameful history of bloody interventions in Latin America. Now Venezuela is once again in Washington's crosshairs—with Nicaragua and Cuba (the ultimate "prize") also on the target list. Thanks to onerous US sanctions, many Venezuelans are experiencing violence, hunger, and poverty. Trump's offer of "humanitarian aid" is a stunt designed to trigger further unrest inside the country. The last thing the struggle in Venezuela needs is a US military invasion. Fortunately, we can do something to stop this madness. 

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) has introduced a bill to block the Trump administration from taking any military action against Venezuela without the approval of Congress. But Congress has to get its act together, immediately. 

What We Can Do: Urge Rep. Barbara Lee to sign on to Rep. Cicilline’s bill to oppose unauthorized military intervention in Venezuela! 

Global Protests as US Targets Venezuela 

The stakes could not be higher as people around the world are mobilizing to support the Venezuelan people by marching to oppose the growing threat of US military intervention in Venezuela. More than 100 cities worldwide held peace protests over the past weekend. In the East Bay, protests were held at Oakland's Oscar Grant Plaza. 

Here's some background on the situation that you won't find in the mainstream press: 

UNAC Statement on the situation in Venezuela 

Venezuela Fact Sheet 

A Letter to Barbara Lee 

Thanks for the note about your endorsement of Kamala Harris's presidential bid. 

In truth, I would have been more thrilled had you endorsed Bernie or Elizabeth or Tulsi. I admire Harris but she has not been a visionary leader on the Green left and she has a troubling alliance with Israel's Netanyahu.
Hoping you will add your support to H.R.1249 [to save the Cold-War-era INF nuclear weapons treaty unilaterally threatened by Trump]. 

Thanks for becoming one of the co-sponsors of Rep. Ro Khanna's bill calling for a declaration officially ending the Korean War. 

And thanks for co-sponsoring legislation to repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which has allowed US presidents to start unconstitutional wars at least 41 times in 19 countries. 

The Creeping Tabloidization of Network News 

On February 22, all three major TV news networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—ran the same lead stories. With all the other news happening in the US and worldwide, the American viewing audience was treated to a salacious trifecta of celebrity scandals: R. Kelley's abuse of underage women; Jussie Smollet's apparent concoction of a "fake noose" story; and NFL honcho Robert Kraft's visit to Florida, which allegedly included a lay-over at a Miami massage parlor. 

Is this what the titans of newscasting have come to? Tabloid-dejur-alism? 

Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow must be twirling in their graves. 

NBC Pressing on for War 

Here's a classic case of the Mainstream Media reinforcing Washington's Warhawkery. The following is a transcript of NBC's Nightly News for February 15, 2019. It begins with an incendiary warning from Lester Holt that promotes John Bolton's Trumped-up fear-mongering in place of objective journalism. 

First, here's Lester Holt's fraught introduction: "There is tough new talk coming from Iran tonight about the possibility of war with the US and Israel. It came in our Richard Engel's exclusive interview with Iran's foreign minister." 

Engel's halts his opening sentence half war through and allows US VP Mike Pense finish the introduction. Here's how it played out: 

Engel: "Just one day after a US-lead conference to pressure Iran . . ." 

Pence: ". . . the Iranian regime openly advocates another Holocaust and it seeks the means to achieve it." 

Only then does NBC cut to a shot of Engels and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif sitting down to talk. 

But before Zarif the interview begins, Engel tells the viewing audience what they are about to hear: "Tonight: A warning from Iran's foreign minister." 

Without further preamble, Engels asks his first question: "Do you think there's a risk that there may be some sort of war between Iran, the United States and Israel?" 

In a calm and thoughtful voice, Zarif replies: "There certainly are some people who were successful in creating the war last time [who] are hard at it again, but I think some sense will prevail and people will find out that it's suicidal to engage in a war with Iran." [Does that sound like a threat of war?] 

Engel follows up: "We also asked if he would take up President Trump on his offer to potentially renegotiate the nuclear deal." [A deal that Trump violated but one that Iran and every other signatory nation still honors.] 

Zarif: "Why should we trust President Trump—that he would abide by his own signature?" [Fair enough.] 

 

Our Brave, Fighting Bombs and Missiles 

Our mainstream press and politicians never miss a chance to praise "our brave fighting men and women" in the armed services. But some of the real frontline fighters in the US Global War on Terror never get the credit they deserve. 

Why don't we hear praise for America's hard-working killer drones?  

Could it be that the government, military, and media don't like to mention drones because they are: covert, illegal, brutal and cowardly? These expensive, remote-controlled bombs—used mainly by the US and the UK—are currently inflicting murder and mayhem across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. In 2018, drones accounted for 27% of British air strikes inside Syria with 75 drone strikes in December alone.  

Creech Air Force Base in Nevada is a major control center for the Pentagon's killer drone program. Dozens of strikes are executed every day by Creech controllers who sit in air-conditioned comfort as they lounge in front of glowing screens and guide their deadly weapons toward distant targets­­­—which frequently include innocent civilians. 

For the past 10 years, anti-drone activists have been protesting along the road outside Creech AFB. This year's week-long "Fifth Annual Shutdown" gathering will run from March 30 to April 5. If you've got the time and the inclination, you can register to participate here. 

 

Worth reading: Missing Pieces: The Human Impact of Drone Strikes. 

Tweet Revenge 

The global activist group Avaaz (working in 18 countries on 6 continents in 17 languages) has come up with a clever plot to twist Trump's Tweets into expedient tools of self-sabotage. 

"What if we could use Trump's obsession with Twitter against him?" That was the challenge. Here is the solution: Imaging that each time Trump tweets a personal insult or a message of racist division, misogyny, or xenophobia, people could reply with: "Thanks for your Tweet! Because of it, 100,000 people around the world have just made a donation to stop policies like this." 

The idea is for people to sign up for a mere 10 cents per Tweet. Get on Trump's Twitter list and you can literally nickel-and-dime the Orange Orangutan from sun-up to sun-down. 

Avaaz predicts that "if enough of us sign up and bring celebrities on board, this story will be like candy to the media." Avaaz also notes that "many of Trump's tweets violate Twitter's user policy and maybe even break hate speech laws—but he gets away with it. So what we're doing is changing that by using the money to challenge the dangerous, often ignorant views he's sending out to millions."
Interested? #TrumpTweetsMakeCents 

We're Speechless: UC Takes Credit  

For Inventing the Free Speech Movement 

UC Berkeley's "CalGift" fund-raisers recently sent out a solicitation headlined: "Berkeley Moments Change the World!" 

Their funding pitch read as follows: 

Open-source software. The wetsuit. The flu vaccine. The Free Speech Movement. The accelerating universe. Two vitamins, 16 elements, and thousands of students’ lives changed.  

For 150 years, UC Berkeley has been changing the world by making life-altering discoveries and developing the next generation of thought leaders . . . .  

Big Give is an annual online giving day that brings the entire UC Berkeley community—alumni, parents, students, faculty, staff, and friends—together to support schools and programs and help them win prize money. Visit BigGive.berkeley.edu to learn more! 

So how do FSM vets feel about being used as a UC fund-raising tool? Here's a sample of responses that trickled in following UC's announcement: 

Vet 1: "Big Give"? More like "Big Take." Invoking the FSM to "win big prize money"? That takes the prize. 

Vet 2: The FSM did provide "life-altering discoveries" but UC's role was akin to the role the influenza virus played in the discovery of the flu vaccine. 

Vet 3: I’ll tell them how much we appreciated all the time and effort the University put into helping us create the Free Speech Movement: "Without their effort, it would not have been necessary." 

Vet 4: To me it is the students and the faculty who are the heart and soul of the University, and so when the University of California takes credit for the FSM, I see it as at least an indirect acknowledgment of that. It was a victory for the University—freedom won by its student activists and their community and faculty allies. 

Vet 5: Send a contribution to the Mario Savio Memorial Lecture at: https://give.berkeley.edu/fund/?f=FW6930000. 

A #MeToons Movement Update 

The Fusco Brothers, the SF Chronicle's cartoon quartet of bad-boy bachelors, continue to (1) mock the plight of hapless flies trapped in soup bowls and (2) women trapped in the same room with the Fusco Brothers. Apparently, not even courtrooms are off-limits. 

In J.C. Duffy's February 20 panel, a judge attempts (and fails) to rein in Lars Fusco's randy nature. May it please the court (and, in this case, it didn't), the exchange ran as follows: 

Lady judge: "Flirtation has no place in a courtroom, Mr. Fusco. And this gavel is no prop." 

Lars Fusco: "Neither are these lips." 

Note: A detailed letter was mailed to the San Francisco Chronicle, calling attention to the strip's serial misogyny and suggesting that the Fuscos be (1) replaced (i.e. removed) or (2) re-placed (somewhere else on the comics pages but no longer in the lead position, above all others). 

So far, no response has been forthcoming from the Chron. 

 

The renowned Takács Quartet, now in its forty-third season, has undergone substantial changes of personnel since its founding in Budapest in 1975. Originally consisting of Gabor Takács-Nagy, Károly Schranz, Gabor Ormai, and András Fejér, the Takács Quartet now includes only cellist András Fejér from the original four. Second violinist Károly Schranz retired last April and has been replaced by Harumi Rhodes. Earlier replacements brought in Edward Dusinberre as first violinist and Geraldine Walther as violist. Over the years, the Takács Quartet has maintained consistently high standards and has received numerous awards and prizes. In 2012 Gramophone magazine announced that the Takács was the only string quartet to be inducted into its first Hall of Fame, along with such legendary artists as Jascha Heifitz, Leonard Bernstein, and Dame Janet Baker.  

On Sunday, February 24, the Takács Quartet performed the first of two successive weekend concerts at Hertz Hall. The program for this first concert, which I attended, included works by Haydn, Bartók, and Grieg. Next Sunday’s concert will consist of another Haydn quartet, the Mendelssohn Quartet, and another Bartók Quartet. If you love the string quartet repertoire and want to hear one of the worlds finest string ensembles going, make it a point to attend next Sunday’s concert at 3:00 pm at Hertz Hall. You will not be disappointed. 

For the February 24 concert, the opening work was Franz Joseph Haydn’s String Quartet in D Major, Op. 20, No. 4. Often cited as the most popular of Haydn’s groundbreaking six Op. 20 quartets, the D Major involves all four principals as soloists, highlighting each instrument and its tonality in turn. It opens quietly with a soft passage heard in the cello, soon joined by the first violin, then by all four instruments. Soon the music becomes agitated, even querulous. By the end of this first movement, tranquility returns. In the second movement we are treated to a set of variations, highlighted by a rich melody for cello, here beautifully played by András Fejér. Each and every time I hear the Takács perform, I am struck by the burnished tonality and sheer musicianship of cellist András Fejér. He is truly wonderful! Following this cello solo Haydn treats us to a sensuous variation for first violin, here gorgeously performed by Edward Dusinberre. Once all four instruments have had their go at a variation, Haydn offers us a Minuet, Allegretto alla zingarese, in other words, a gypsy-style movement full of “out of-step” rhythms. The finale abounds in humor, “wrong chords,” and whirling energy, until, at the end, everything slows down for an unexpectedly serene close. 

Next on the February 24 program was Bela Bartók’s String Quartet No. 1 in A minor, Op. 7. This work opens quietly with a dirge-like duet from the two violins. Soon cello and viola join in. The textures are rich, the tonality indeterminate. Soon the cello introduces powerful bow strokes, which introduce a viola solo, beautifully played here by Geraldine Walther. Then the cello offers a flowing passage, gorgeously played by András Fejér. Now the two violins reprise the opening dirge-like passage, and all four instruments take up this motif, bringing it to a climax. Without a pause, the second movement begins, a lively Allegretto. Here András Fejér’s cello offers a fair amount of pizzicato accompaniment to the viola and the two violins. The third and final movement opens with the cello, which is answered by a soaring passage from the first violin. Here Bartók plays off the low tonality of the cello against the ethereally high tonality of the violin. Next we hear fleeting suggestions of Hungarian folk songs collected by Bartók. A vigorous dance ensues, and the work builds to a tumultuous conclusion. The sheer vitality combined with exquisite musicianship marked this wonderful performance of Bartók’s Quartet No. 1 by the Takács Quartet. 

After intermission, the Takács Quartet retunred to perform Edvard Grieg’s String Quartet No. 1 in G minor, Op. 27. This work is rarely performed, and I for one had never heard it. Little about it impressed me through the opening movements. It was all very graceful, though almost orchestral in its big sound. But there was nothing, not a single melody, you could latch onto and hold in your memory. However, towards the end of this work things picked up considerably. András Fejér suddenly had dramatc tremolos to 

play, and he played them vigorously and repeatedly, while the other instruments embroidered lyrical passages around and against Fejér’s tremolos. This was exciting music. And it almost made the earlier doldrums worthwhile, though I can’t say I’m eager to hear this first Grieg Quartet again soon. Nonetheless, I am grateful to the Takács Quartet for offering us this rarely heard work by a major composer. All told, this was a well-balanced program, elegantly conceived and beautifully performed by the Takács Quartet.

On Saturday the Berkeley Neighborhood Council sponsored a public forum, Can Berkeley be a Livable City for All?, which featured Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin and Berkeley Planning Director Timothy Burroughs explaining their current thinking and actions in the key field of land use, followed by an open no-holds-barred opportunity for participants to question and address them on all kinds of topics. The meeting was the best possible illustration of how the city’s public meetings, which typically limit citizen comments to meaningless one minute soundbytes, serve little or no purpose in informing officials, both hired and elected, about what’s happening on the ground in Berkeley.

This gathering, which was held in the community center in South West Berkeley’s San Pablo Park, gave the city’s many articulate thinkers as long as they needed to talk about what’s right and what’s wrong with the way the city is being run these days, at least in matters which involve land use. Thanks to volunteer videographer Christine Schwartz, there’s an excellent public record of what was said, and it’s worth the time to watch the whole three hours of it. (Yes, that’s what I said, three hours!).

It can be found on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/307RuIpEgkQ

It would be great if someone, a reader perhaps, could create an index to highlight particularly cogent comments—any volunteers? A transcription or summary of high points would also be good—I might try that myself later in the week.

Meanwhile, take the time to take a look. Mayor Arreguin’s summary, very early in the video, of all the activity in Sacramento aimed at usurping local control over land use, would be a good place to start.

Why does it matter if warming is limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial climate? If the planet warms to 2°C or above, how much worse could it be? Or at 3°C? We would be lucky to stop at 3°C. If all current climate pledges (including California's) are fulfilled - and we are not on track for even that much emissions reduction - at least 3°C warming will occur. 

Here are a very few highlights from the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C¹. Most of these changes will occur within a single lifespan from today. 

1. At 1.5°C, global maize crop yields will likely fall by about 10%. At 2.0°C, they will fall by about 15%. At 3°C warming, where we are headed, "Drastic reductions in maize crop globally and in Africa (high confidence) potential tipping point for collapse of maize crop in some regions (low confidence)". 

2. At 1.5°C: 6% of insects, 4% of vertebrates, and 8% of plants will lose more than half of their habitat. A warming of only 2°C will "double or triple" the number of species affected. 

3. Marine food webs are undergoing disruption that will increase as we reach 1.5°C. The risk significantly increases at 2°C. This includes impacts on fisheries. Coral reefs have a 10-30% chance of surviving at 1.5°C and will be wiped out beyond 2°C. 

4. At warming of 1.5°C/2°C/3°C, the numbers of people directly exposed and vulnerable to existential risks (by virtue of their location): 
   • water stress: 496 million / 586 million / 662 million
   • heatwaves: 1,187 million / 1,581 million / 1,707 million
   • crop yield change: 8 million / 81 million / 406 million

These deadly risks multiply. For example food and water shortages increase inter-group conflicts and mass migrations. Hundreds of millions will abruptly migrate out of low-latitude areas in some, likely, 3°C+ scenarios. 

Threats to food webs are particularly noteworthy. As species become locally extinct, those that depend on those species for food and other services are threatened. For example, widely reported recent research has found extremely high recent-decades declines in the populations of flying insects in multiple locations. This has led, for example, to sharp reductions in bird and lizard populations. This "domino effect" is believed to be one of the key mechanisms of mass extinctions. 

About this series

This is the first in a series of very short discussions of climate change, meant to be easily understood by a wide audience. 

Please let me know if you spot errors, or have suggestions or questions. I will do my best to improve the notes and to issue corrections as necessary. I can be contacted at lord@basiscraft.com. Please put "climate:" at the beginning of the subject line. 

Planned topics

• Climate note #1: "The push for zero"
  The gravity of the situation. 

• Climate note #2: "The carbon budget"
  The scarcity of resources to solve the problem. 

• Climate note #3: "How soon until zero?"
  The urgency of successful action. 

• Climate note #4: "Mass die-offs? Extinction? Really?!?"
  The importance of acting. 

• Climate note #5: "Your lifestyle or your life - physical and economic limits"
  The sacrifice required (no sugar-coating). 

• Climate note #6: "Can't we just make our infrastructure green?"
  The denialism popularized by progressive politics. 

• Climate note #7: "What is to be done?"
  How to act wisely, together, in solidarity. 

• Climate note #8: "The genocide problem."
  Are we monsters? 

• Climate note #9: "Simple plans of action."
  A little courage is all we need to act. 

• Climate note #10: "Rejoice."
  A personal reflection.