California air regulators want to cut down the use of gas-powered lawn tools, arguing they could be worse for the environment than automobiles.

Last summer’s effort by the SF Board of Supervisors to ban natural gas from city-owned buildings was hailed by the measure’s co-author, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, as an example of how “San Francisco needs to lead the way” out of the ongoing climate crisis. But in reality, that measure had its roots in Berkeley, and several other climate measures are also inspired by ambitious/restrictive environmental laws in smaller municipalities. And so it goes with today’s report in the Chronicle about several local pushes to ban gas-powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers, a move regulators hope to spread statewide just like the California auto emission standards.

It won’t surprise you to hear that Berkeley already has a similar ban, though theirs only relates to leaf blowers. Same goes for Belvedere, Los Gatos, Mill Valley, and Sonoma  (the city, not the county.) Various time and area-based bans on the gas devices are in effect in Palo Alto and Orinda, and Novato is considering an outright ban. The goal is to get landscapers to use electric devices instead; though many users don’t like those because they’re less powerful and often require an electrical cord.

But experts argue that gas mowers and blowers can produce as much, or more pollution than cars. “The reason that they’re such high polluters, there’s not anything fundamentally different about engines, they’re not fundamentally dirtier, but we haven’t put effort into cleaning them up like cars,” California Air Resources Board engineer  Dorothy Fibiger told the Chronicle. She points out that items like catalytic converters are generally not seen on mowers and blowers, to keep them lightweight.

One advantage that can help the transition is that electric mowers are generally a little cheaper, and of course, do not have to be refilled with expensive gas. But the electric equivalents, even the cordless versions, can take longer to complete a task.

And when you use electrical energy, you are of course at the mercy of any PG&E blackouts the utility may decide to foist upon you. Maybe you’re lucky enough to be powered by solar rooftop panels, but that’s unlikely, given that the California solar mandate has been in effect for merely six days. And while California could ban gas mowers and blowers, either city by city or in a statewide fell swoop, you can expect to see a lawsuit trying to undo the move. Which is exactly what’s happening right now with the aforementioned Berkeley natural gas ban.

Related: SF May Own Its Own Electrical Grid By Buying It From Bankrupt PG&E [SFist]

Image: Lars Plougmann via Flickr

You've likely seen prong collars (like the one pictured above) on dogs in San Francisco — perhaps you've even used one yourself! (On a dog, jeez, what you do in private is your business.) But now SF's SPCA is taking a stand of the controversial devices, by refusing to allow animals wearing them to set foot on their campuses.

As described by the US Humane Society, in a prong collar, "the loop that fits around your dog's neck is made of a series of fang-shaped metal links, or prongs, with blunted points. When the control loop is pulled, the prongs pinch the loose skin of your dog's neck."

According to the Humane Society, "These collars rely on physical discomfort or even pain to teach the dog what not to do. They suppress the unwanted behavior, but they don't teach him what the proper behavior is. At best, they are unpleasant for your dog, and at worst, they may cause your dog to act aggressively and even bite you." However, a quick cyberspace search will show you plenty of presumable dog lovers who are all about prong collars, like this trainer who says "There are very few dogs that I would not train with a prong collar" and this dog rescuer who says that "of all the tools used in dog training, perhaps none is more widely misunderstood and maligned than the prong collar."

Like I said, it's controversial. And now San Francisco's SPCA (which is an independent, community-supported, non-profit animal welfare organization, not to be confused with the city-run Animal Care and Control) has come down on the "against" side of the controversy, and has banned the collars from both of their locations in the city.

It's all part of "a new education campaign about the harm caused by prong collars," SF SPCA spokesperson Krista Maloney says via email.

"Prong collars cause injuries and behavioral problems," the SPCA says in their announcement of the ban, arguing that "prong collars are designed to inflict pain and discomfort and can cause serious physical, behavioral, and emotional damage."

Not only, says the SF SPCA, can prong collars lead to injuries "from skin irritation and punctures to spinal cord problems," but they "often lead to long-term behavioral problems," as "if pain is experienced during everyday activities, like walks and vet visits, dogs can begin to associate an owner's presence, and other harmless stimuli encountered while wearing the prong, with fear and discomfort."

And yet, Dr. Jennifer Scarlett, SF SPCA co-president says, they are still commonly used, as "there's a huge need for community education."

Part of that education will be ending their use on SF SPCA land, as their campuses in both the Mission and Pacific Heights "will become prong-collar-free environments in the coming months." Visitors who arrive with dogs in prong collars will be required to remove the devices while on campus and "instead use flat collars, which will be provided free of charge," the SPCA says.

In addition to the issues Scarlett says the collars cause dogs, they are "a safety concern for our medical staff. Veterinarians and technicians can easily harm themselves while trying to examine a dog who's wearing a prong collar," she says.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as even Scarlett admits that use of prong collars is widespread, and "We continue to regularly see prong collars on dogs throughout San Francisco." And many dog guardians that use the collars are passionate proponents, like this one who says that "The very people that speak poorly of prongs are the people that have never actually used them. Isn’t that amazing that they’re so unwilling to leave their comfort zone they’d rather sentence the dog to death by labeling it 'aggressive' than try something that actually works?"

For their part, the SF SPCA appears stalwart in their opposition to the devices. "Despite what some trainers or pet store employees might say, prong collars are not safe or humane," they write on their website.

"There’s no good reason to use them when many humane, effective alternative walking equipment options exist...These collars do nothing to train your dog what behaviors to perform, they only tell him what not to do, using pain and fear."

It's been nearly nine years since San Francisco banned Styrofoam coffee cups, to-go containers, after then Board of Supervisors President Aaron "I'm back" Peskin pushed forward legislation banning the use of such products as of June, 2007. And now the Board's current president wants the ban to go even further, prohibiting polystyrene packing materials, ice chests, and pool toys.

It was back in June, 2006 that Peskin said "Polystyrene foam products rely on nonrenewable sources for production, are nearly indestructible and leave a legacy of pollution on our urban and natural environments. If McDonald's could see the light and phase out polystyrene foam more than a decade ago, it's about time San Francisco got with the program" as he introduced his proposed ban on restaurant use of the material. Since then, the Chron reports, "more than 100 cities have enacted laws restricting the sale of foam products."

Breed's ban, the Chron reports, would prohibit polystyrene "packing peanuts, ice chests, beach toys, dock floats, mooring buoys and fish trays." It "will not impact packages with polystyrene foam sent from out of state," so neither you nor your grandma in Omaha will get busted if she sends you a care package of cookies nestled in chips of Styrofoam.

It's unclear when Breed plans on introducing the expanded ban (and an email from SFist to her office wasn't responded to at publication time), but already, industry representatives are up in squeaky, foamy arms. “In reality the city of San Francisco is not going to be helping the environment. They are just going to appear to be helping the environment,” one lobbyist tells the Chron, saying that Breed and SF's Department of the Environment, which helped write the legislation, are overstating the dangers of polystyrene.

Both are “picking and choosing numbers to make the problem look like it’s bigger than it is” the lobbyist says.

According to Breed's legislation (which SFist requested a full copy of, but had not received at publication time), the product “has been linked to cancer as well as reproductive and developmental disorders...threatens the entire food chain" and is "a significant source of litter on San Francisco’s streets, parks, and public places.”

If the legislation passes — which is likely, given the Board's current makeup — the Department of the Environment will enforce the law, with hefty fines for offenders. But it might not be as simple as all that, as polystyrene advocates have turned litigious in recent years, and successfully overturned New York's restaurant ban on the product in 2015.

Gothamist reported last year that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan drubbed the ban, saying that there is "abundant evidence showing a viable and growing market for not just clean EPS (expanded polystyrene foam) but post-consumer EPS material." That judgement was enough to kill the ban in Gotham, and it hasn't been revived.

Will San Francisco's ban, which would be the "most extensive ban on the product in the country," suffer a similar fate? Not if Breed has her way. In fact, she tells the Chron, “We should have made plans years and years ago,” to ban even more polystyrene stuff.

“This is about the fact that we have the technology to do better and we should be doing better.”

5:24 p.m.: In a call to SFist, Breed chief of staff Conor Johnston says that the legislation "was introduced about an hour ago" at the meeting of the full Board. You can read the full legislation as it is presently proposed here, and the "digest" version here.

Hoverboards, the chosen transportation method of SantaConners and jerky rich guys, have gotten themselves a new foe: San Francisco State University president Leslie E. Wong.

The devices, which despite their name are more likely to burn your house down than to actually hover, were hit with a mandatory helmet law in California last month and have churned controversy after being officially OKed for use in our fine state's bike lanes. But none of the item's many issues will be a problem at SF State, as they have banned the items this week.

According to the SF State student newspaper the Golden Gate Xpress, last Thursday Wong announced that in a meeting that "safety is his top priority and that banning hoverboards will help ensure students’ safety."

In an email sent Monday, director of student housing and conference program Philippe Cumia announced that as part of a "change in the housing license agreement," the devices are now banned on SF State's campus grounds.

Other items banned for use on SF State's campus include air soft guns and rifles, firearms, ammunition, explosives, firecrackers, hunting knives, and "dangerous chemicals."

The ban is effective immediately, the Xpress reports.

Previously: Hoverboards Blamed For Two Bay Area House Fires In Past Week
Hoverboards Bursting Into Flames All Over, Amazon Yanks Them From Site
New Law Forcing Hoverboards Into Bike Lanes Takes Effect
Hoverboards Set To Get Even Dorkier With Mandatory Helmet Law, Other Regulations Taking Effect

A brutal brawl between 49ers and Vikings fans caught on video following last weekend's game has some Santa Clara City Council members expressing second thoughts about one of Levi's Stadium's biggest revenue streams: The sale of alcohol during San Francisco 49ers games.

Though the stadium was no stranger to brawls during its maiden season last year (nor was Candlestick before it), it was apparently a September 14 fight in the parking lot of the stadium that got Council members Lisa Gillmor, Teresa O'Neill and Debi Davis planning a discussion on "possible actions to address health and safety issues" at the 49ers' home stadium during Tuesday's Santa Clara City Council meeting, the Chron reports.

“We really need to send a message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated,” said Gillmor.

Apparently, that video is just one example of "bad behavior on game days that has stadium neighbors upset," the Chron reports.

O’Neill told the Chron "she had no idea before Levi’s opened that there was so much drinking outside stadiums," and expressed confusion at the whole drunk-in-the-parking-lot thing, saying "we have a municipal code about not drinking in parking lots."

Gillmor says that the Council will mull upping the police presence around the stadium, and banning alcohol sales at the stadium after halftime, but Santa Clara Police Chief Michael Sellers appears to think that the consternation is overblown, saying that “We are just like any other NFL stadium... we have 70,000 fans, and less than a tenth of a percent are a problem.”

“There is an element that will still behave badly...It’s an individual choice.”

But Gillmor seems to think that a ban on alcohol might be the anti-brawl silver bullet. “I know they make a lot of money off of alcohol sales," she says, "but if people have an hour and a half (without alcohol) maybe they will cool down a bit."

Tuesday's meeting is at 7 p.m. at Santa Clara City Hall (1500 Warburton Avenue) in the Council Chambers. Should be a good one!

Previously: Video: 49ers Fans Brutally Beat Smack-Talking Vikings Fan Outside Levi's Stadium

In a move that surprised no one today, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB270, aka "California's plastic bag ban" into law. Just as unsurprisingly, the folks who make plastic bags are pissed, and say that they won't rest until California's voters repeal the law, with a move that could delay the law's implementation until 2017, or later.

Before today, single-use plastic bags were already verboten in 87 California cities and counties including, as you of course know, San Francisco. With Brown's OK of the state-wide ban, California becomes the first state in the US to have such a law.

With the ban, grocery stores, big-box stores like Walmart and Target, and pharmacies in places that don't already have the ban will be required to stop offering single-use plastic bags by July 2015. The same will go for corner stores and liquor stores the year after that. The law doesn't apply to non-food retailers like most of the places in your local mall, nor does it apply to the little plastic bags you get at the grocery store for produce or bulk items, or the plastic bags they put your meat in.

As has been the case in San Francisco, stores will be required by law to charge at least a dime for every paper bag or "reusable" plastic bag a customer gets, all in an effort to encourage folks to bring their reusable bags.

All this is pretty much nbd for those of us in the Bay Area, where many of us live in places where the single-use bags have been banned for a while. For whom the deal is big are plastic bag manufacturers who, despite the law's built-in $2 million in loans to help them transition their operations to produce reusable bags, say that they're ready to fight the ban.

In a statement sent to media, The American Progressive Bag Alliance (a coalition of manufacturers), which describes the ban as "what happens when greedy special interests and bad government collide in the policymaking process," says that they "have taken the necessary steps to gather signatures and qualify a referendum to repeal SB 270 on the November 2016 ballot."

If they are successful in collecting the number of signatures they'll need to be added to the 2016 ballot (in this case, 504,760 verified signatures), the bag ban will be suspended until after November 2016 election. If voters agree with the bag makers that the law must be repealed, then it's game over for the ban, at least for now. If the ban prevails, the law will then kick in in January, 2017.

While visiting San Francisco for a couple of fundraisers on Thursday, President Barack Obama stopped off at Chinatown's Great Eastern Restaurant to grab some dim sum. Many of us have done this before, right? Right. They have some of the best dim sum in town. However, did you know that Great Eastern still sells shark fin, which was banned at the start of 2012? That's right, Obama buys dim sum at restaurants that aid in the destruction and depletion of the shark population. Classic socialist behavior.

New York Times breathlessly reports:

Mr. Obama was in town on a fund-raising romp, hitting up big wallets in Nob Hill and other affluent neighborhoods. His one attempt to rub shoulders with the little people, in the form of his stop in Chinatown at the Great Eastern restaurant, went sour, though, when the local press perused the menu of the restaurant for clues about what the president ordered.

There it was: braised shark fin soup, $48. The delicacy has been outlawed in California thanks to animal welfare supporters who say the capture of the sharks is horrific. But Great Eastern still had the soup on its menu thanks to a loophole in the law.

Even the San Francisco Chronicle got in on the feigned shock and awe, noting on today's front page," President Obama, who signed the Shark Conservation Act into law last month, greets employees of the Great Eastern restaurant in Chinatown, which still serves shark fin soup." As the Chron goes on to point out, Great Eastern is one of only nine reported restaurants in Chinatown that still serve the soup. Why? Because Chinatown can do whatever it wants regardless of state laws or countless health violations of a federal law loophole that allows suppliers to still sell shark fins if the product was obtained legally, which requires keeping the carcass intact.

Photo: President Barack Obama gets Chinese food from Great Eastern Restaurant in San Francisco, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

In a move poised to stave off children looking like white trash, Governor Jerry Brown banned kids from using tanning beds. The legislation, singed over the weekend, makes California the first state to adopt such a ban. Doctors, nurses, American Cancer Society, and people with commonsense backed the bill penned by Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance).

"I praise Gov. Brown for his courage in taking this much-needed step to protect some of California's most vulnerable residents - our kids - from what the 'House of Medicine' has conclusively shown is lethally dangerous: ultraviolet-emitting radiation from tanning beds," Lieu said in a prepared statement. "If everyone knew the true dangers of tanning beds, they'd be shocked.

Kids will soon have to wait until they're 14 (teens between 14 and 18 will need parental consent) in order to look like Bristol Palin.

Following on the heels of yesterday's report that, as soon as the ban goes into effect, foie gras will turn into an underground treat for gastronomes—all of this fattened liver talk has made us very, very hungry for it, by the way—a noted animal rights group asked the government today to label the taboo treat with a warning to consumers. National non-profit Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), asking that foie gras show a consumer warning label saying, “NOTICE: Foie gras products are derived from diseased birds.”

Diseased birds? How is this possible? Well, according to ALDF, "in U.S. foie gras farms in New York and California, ducks are force fed three pounds of mash a day through a pipe shoved down their throats—the equivalent of force-feeding 45 pounds of food to an adult human—inducing liver disease known as hepatic lipidosis that often cripples and poisons the birds." Which, yes, that would make them diseased. We guess. Anyway.

Questionably comparing foie gras to smoking, ALDF Director of Litigation Carter Dillard says, "Today’s petition, at the very least, alerts consumers to what they are eating. Just like someone buying a pack of cigarettes, consumers purchasing foie gras have a right to know what they are really buying, and to be warned about the risks involved.”

The odds of the USDA placing a warning label on foie gras are slim to none. Which is to say, it will never happen.

In July of 2012, California will ban the sale and production of foie gras. The selling of the succulent treat could result in a $1,000 fine.

Over the past year, the San Francisco Health Department has tirelessly worked to shutdown the scourge known as hookah lounges. For those not in the know, hookah lounges are a rite of passage for anyone new to the Bay Area. At these cesspools of moral bankruptcy, one can partake in smoking innocuous, flavored tobacco (which violates the indoor smoking ban) while ordering a side of dolmas or hummus and pita triangles. They're as bad as Hitler.

According to the Chronicle, several of these business owners appeared at department hearing this week to find out that most of them will need to get rid of "all tobacco and tobacco products and discontinue smoking through tobacco pipes" at some point very soon.

Dream Hookah Lounge, Cafe Chanta, Cairo Nights, Marrakech Moroccan Restaurant and Kan Zaman, among others, all face severe changes in business plans if they don't stop the huffing and puffing right-quick.

[Chron]

R&B duo Matier & Ross have word that the San Francisco Animal Control Commission suggests a citywide ban on goldfish sales. While buying pets from puppy and kittens mills are a oneway route to the lower circles of Hell, we're shocked to hear that pet store fish are also a problem. And that truly saddens us. Poor little Nemos.

"Most fish in aquariums are either mass bred under inhumane conditions or taken from the wild," commission member Philip Gerrie explained to M&R. "That leads to devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia."

Well, that's no good. As they say, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly. We digress.

Local local merchants, of course, are fuming at the idea of a fish ban, saying that it would be yet another example of City Hall trying to control our lives. Supervisor Eric Mar, "who introduced a measure Tuesday to keep big pet store chains out of the Richmond District," and his fellow board members will "make the final call."

[Chron]

Get it? On hold? Anyway, a plan to ban plastic bags in the city of Berkeley faces serious delays after the Coalition to Save the Plastic Bag raised a stink. "A ban on plastic bags will not be approved anytime this year, city officials said this week," reports The Daily Cal. "What originally appeared to be a simple way for the city to become more green has become increasingly complicated over the last five years, as some environmentalists question the benefits of using paper over plastic, and opponents of the ban look to stall progress through a number of lawsuits."

The American Chemistry Council, who have absolutely, positively, 100% nothing to do with the Coalition to Save the Plastic Bag, has also raised issues with the bag ban, saying that,; in addition to losing jobs, one can simply recycle.

In 2007, San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi helped make San Francisco the first U.S. city to ban plastic bags.

[Daily Cal]

Not that we compare ourselves to San Jose that often, but our neighbor to the south has just become the largest city in the country to ban plastic grocery bags. We've been plastic-free at major grocery chains in the city for awhile now, but as the Weekly points out San Jose's 10-cent fee for paper makes more sense than our own legislation that allows us to double-bag with reckless abandon.

Supervisor Mirkarimi, always thinking of the trees, has already introduced legislation to charge the same fee in San Francisco, but we're still looking for answers on his holiday spread.

[SFWeekly]