Sierra Club--Environmentalists or Wankers?

[phantom power]

Kos tells us that despite the fact that the Sierra Club only gives Lincoln Chafee a 20% approval rating for his voting record, they are endorsing him. Presumably because he "bucks his party" (and if he’s ever done so in a meaningful way where it wasn’t all for show on a useless vote, I’d like to see it). But the Sierra Club sure is enthusiastic about him, and they are also going to put their muscle behind getting him re-elected:

(...)

This is quite possibly even worse than NARAL’s continued support for Chafee who only has a 65% voting record last year on pro-choice issues (and if you count his cloture votes on judges — which NARAL did not — it’s even worse).

I know these organizations get really excited when the GOP takes a wrecking ball to their causes because the donations come flooding in. I’m becoming exceptionally piqued that they manipulate people’s legitimate fears in order to raise cash and perpetuate themselves with little or no regard to the cause they pretend to serve.

If the Democrats are going to retake the Senate in the next election and prevent another Strip Search Sammy from getting on the Supreme Court, Chafee holds one of the key seats that must be retaken. Are the Sierra Club and NARAL doing their best to ensure a permanent Republican majority that will keep them in the chips in perpetuity and leave the rest of us at the mercy of a narcissistic child with his finger on the nuclear football, his power to destroy unchecked by any oversight?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/20/wait-dont-open-that-wallet/

[LeftyMom]

1. Wankers.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_83936.asp

Sierra Club Director Resigns to Protest Hunting Prize
posted April 17, 2006

Sierra Club Director Paul Watson, one of the 15 National Directors of the Sierra Club, has resigned today from the National Board of the Sierra Club.

...

“It appears to me that the Sierra Club should have better projects to spend $15,700 on than sending some nimrod to Alaska to shoot wildlife,” said Watson. “Last year they turned down my request for a $5,000 grant to assist the rangers in the Galapagos National Park deal with poachers."

Watson last year protested the posting of pictures of Sierra Club leaders posing with their trophy kills on the Sierra Club website. Each year, the Club is spending over two hundred thousand dollars on hunter outreach programs despite the fact that less than 20% of the Sierra Club membership are hunters. target="_blank">http://www.sierraclub.org/huntingfishing/whoweare.asp

Watson, who has been a Sierra Club member since 1968, thinks the Club is forgetting its role as a conservation organization. “This is John Muir’s Sierra Club,” he said, “It is not supposed to be the Sahara Club. You can’t love nature with a gun.”

(more at link)

[struggle4progress]

27. I don't hunt BUT winning environmental fights means putting together ..

.. real coalitions.

And although I'm not a hunter or fisher myself, I have to appreciate the fact that the hunting and fishing crowd DOES like the natural environment and WILL work with us to protect wildlife and habitat.

BOTTOM LINE: If you want to win, work with others ..

[sam sarrha]

2. probably just the Oligarchy.. most of the sierra club people i knew were

there to meet people to hike with, and outdoorsy women

[struggle4progress]

28. Many of the Sierra Club people I know work full time on issues ..

.. and do it effectively. A number have gotten themselves elected to public office in order to promote conservation.

[Kolesar]

36. Several Michigan volunteer activists are now Michigan state legislators

I don't know what could be more elegant and righteous than that.

[paparush]

3. The Group is OK, andI like the Magazine EXCEPT -

That all the travel trips they advertise all cost THOUSANDS of dollars and they only picture white people...

[marbuc]

4. There was an article in the Nation about this a few months back

In a nutshell, it stated this strategy is actually counterproductive for the interest groups, because closer examination reveals these so called mavericks only buck the party when their vote is considered inconsequential. When the repubs close ranks on any given issue, these people fall in line. It is an interesting article, I recommend it if you have time to search for it.

Edit: On second thought, it might have been this from American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10002

[IrateCitizen]

5. Wankers more into NIMBYism than the environment...

I was an activist in my local SC a few years back, and I found the organization to be filled with affluent people more concerned about NIMBYism than anything else -- especially taking serious looks at their own lives to see what kind of lasting change they could make.

As for the national level, Carl Pope rules it with an iron grip.

[XemaSab]

6. It's a mile wide and an inch deep...

n/t

[NNadir]

7. If they are wankers, it is too bad.

This is an organization born of John Muir.

The Sierra club had an illustrious history, but being an organization in the United States, it would not be surprising to learn that it is an organization dominated by dogma, spin, and confusion. It is probably only a reflection of our times of endless distraction.

[Odin2005]

8. NIMBYists and naive suburbubanites.

Greenpeace is the same way.

[blindpig]

9. Checkbook environmentalism

I fear the mainstream enviro orgs have become a detrimint to getting anything serious done. While they do some good on limited projects their overall effect is to act as a pallitive for the middle class. A check in the mail and they've saved the world! Then they get in their Tahoe and drive two blocks to the store. The multitude of orgs difuses money better spent on political action, the only way to really get anything done. The kind of changes required will be uncomfortable, and they don't want to scare away the comfortable with horrible ideas like shared sacrifice.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Wankers, without question

They have grown so large that protecting their existence is a top priority. These guys are just as guilty of fear mongering and manipulation of facts on environmental issues as BushCo on Iraq.

[Kolesar]

11. The Sierra Club endorses a handful of republicans every election cycle

Note that this was posted on that DKos thread:

Here is the Sierra Club's defense of their Chafee endorsement (which still does not convince me, but...)

Thank you for contacting the Sierra Club Political Committee concerning the Club's endorsement of Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. Criticism of this endorsement is based on a misapprehension of the nature of the Sierra Club's political program. For the 25 years that this program has been in place we have rewarded good environmental actions and criticized bad environmental actions in an even-handed and non-partisan fashion. The Sierra Club political program will continue to operate in this independent fashion: should it fail to do so it would lose credibility with the American voting public, which relies on the organization for unbiased and accurate political information.

It was alleged on the political blog Daily Kos that Senator Chafee's voting record was 20%. In fact, the most commonly consulted environronmenal voting record is produced by the League of Conservation Voters, which gave him a 90% voting record for the 109th Congress, 2003-2004. The Sierra Club produces its own voting compilation for use internally by the political staff and committee. Of four indicator votes that were on issues of particular interest to the Sierra Club in 2004, and that were used to evaluate every senator's voting record, Senator Chafee voted with the Club 100% of the time. We are currently engaged in highlighting votes that we will use to perform a similar evaluation of the 2005-2006 Congressional cycle. We have tenatively identified seven key environmental and trade votes, and Senator Chafee has voted correctly on all seven.

Moreover, Senator Chafee has been an active leader on environmental issues in ways that go well beyond simply voting positively. As a key member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and chair of the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, he has consistently demonstrated independence and leadership on issues ranging from clean air, to global warming, to cleaning up toxic waste and protecting special places. Some of the highlights include:

-- He has been a champion for rallying colleagues to vote to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,

-- He nearly single-handedly assured that the Clean Air Act was not weakened to produce more polluting oil refineries,

-- He is working to assure that the Endangered Species Act is preserved despite attacks from special interests.

The blog implies that the Chafee endorsement was engineered by a small number of Sierra Club top staff. In fact, every Congressional endorsement requires a 2/3 vote by at least two broadly representative committees of volunteers. In this instance the Chafee endorsement was approved unanimously by the Rhode Island Chapter Political Committee, the Rhode Island Chapter Executive Committee, and the national Sierra Club Political Committee.

In 2005 the Sierra Club Board of Directors created a task force to examine and make recommendations on the principles and operations of the Club's political program. One finding of the task force report, which was adopted by the Board, was:

"The strength of our endorsements and our reputation is in our ability to declare in a nonpartisan/bipartisan manner which candidate is the best choice for the environment. Our opponents seek to diminish our power in this arena by labeling us as a special interest, so we need to constantly strive to maintain our reputation."

One of the surest ways of sabotaging our public reputation and consequently diminishing our power would be not to recognize that the Senate needs more environmental champions like Lincoln Chafee.

Sincerely yours, Jonathan Ela Chair, Sierra Club Political Committee

I have done a lot of grassroots activism with the club in the last few years and I have learned a huge amount about politics and activism from it. Most of the answers on this thread are obviously written by people who don't know enough about the club to make credible comments about what the Sierra Club does. Markos and his prime poster Armando at DKos are irresponsible for inflaming this as they have.

I would be happy to see Democrats refuse dirty coal, oil, and electricity campaign contributions. That would give the party credibility on the issue of survival of our planet.

[IronLionZion]

12. The upper class caucasian club can kiss my left ass cheek

I don't give a shit what they think. wankers, all of them.

[dcfirefighter]

13. Now, what's wrong with upper class & caucasian?

I may not be upper class, but I cannot deny my caucasian-ness. Plus, where else is a guy to go meet outdoorsy women?

Nice sig line.

[IronLionZion]

14. nothing

I have nothing against individuals who are upper class or caucasian. I'm neither. But when a group is made up like that, it reeks of elitism.

Outdoorsy women are the best kind.

And I wish we had more DFC dems. :patriot: freedom is a beautiful thing. It's a real shame to see intelligent DUers think that free enterprise is the same as corporate cronyism.

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

15. Shh, don't wake The Siesta Club

Imagine how unnerving it is for a CEO to see The Sierra Club up in his company's face, arriving in zodiacs, hanging huge, witty banners on their gates, crashing shareholder meetings, and, oops, wrong environmental group.
Just another senior moment there.

[Kolesar]

17. Share with us what you have done to advance environmental causes...

...newbie. :hi:

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

22. Advancing the cause

I worked for Greenpeace for five years. Enough said.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. not quite enough....

which 5 years? If it's the last five, I'll point at you and laugh. :D

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

25. No, no, no

Not the last five years. But, I did my part for successful campaigns, including scaling billboards 70 feet above a freeway. It's that Quaker thing about bearing witness that really made a difference to me.

So, what does a Dead Parrot do for the good?

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Oh, I keep myself busy...

The day the DOC runs out of volunteer grunt work is the day I can give my boots a decent burial... :)

What's your take on Greenpeace these days? I get the distinct impression they've lost direction: It's a while since I was a member, and I hardly recognize them anymore - The Zodiacs are the same, but they seem more interested in getting in the paper for the sake of it, now...

...and don't get me started on the cafepress junk. :(

[montana500]

16. The Sierra Club has done more for conservation than most groups

Many of our nations parks and wilderness areas wouldn't exist without their help.

To rip apart a long time ally is completely ridiculous.

Kos doesn't know anything about conservation. He knows about horseraces, that's it.

I agree I would rather have a friendly dem in Chafee's place, but the SC doesn't deserve to be trashed.

[Buzz Clik]

19. The Sierra Club needs to start over

Everything gets flushed except their calendars. Everybody fired, board members dismissed.

Yes, the Sierra Club is a powerful lobbying threat, but is that really what's needed? They need serious introspection to get back to where they once were before their existence was their number one priority.

[hunter]

18. I was a member of the Sierra Club for many years. I quit.

It was all the clueless affluence that got to me. My breaking point was over the issue of immigration.

The fantasy of an island (and unspokenly white) ecotopia America seemed to motivate many of them -- they were keeping the riff-raff out of their pristine natural preserves. I could feel a hypocrisy about them. They had theirs, everyone else go home.

So of course I moved onwards to the left wing environmentalist extreme, which didn't turn out so well, but I did get to run and swim naked with women, whenever we weren't digging through the trash of our latest corporate enemy.

[Kolesar]

20. Did you know the immigration position was defeated twice?

Your statements are unsupportable. A few thousand upstart members and new members (from anti-immigrant groups) wanted a position restricting immigration. That is out of 700,000 members.

[hunter]

21. Those poor, poor, immigrants....

...living stacked like cordwood in shacks and garages.

(wringing hands)

What to do?

We can't say anything against them, no we can't.

Agghhhhhhh! Low Income Apartments in my neighborhood! Noooooooooooooo! Suburban Sprawl, Suburban Sprawl!


I used to get so damned frustrated. I still do, but I'm not a masochist.

A similarly frustrating issue is natural gas.

It's cleaner than coal, you know. Cogeneration, conservation, and all that. Amory Lovins says it's cool. You can make it out of cow poop.

So here we are all hell bent for the importation of natural gas, but then we turn around and freak out about the construction of LNG terminals.

Not in my Backyard!

Fine, they'll build them in Mexico instead.

In my years as an environmentalist the explicit policies of the Sierra Club have made the world a crappier place for people living outside the United States. I keep hoping they'll see they are the bumbling good natured guy who often manages to make bad situations even worse (Computer Recycling? Clean Car Campaign? Ethanol?) but they never do.

Let's go for a hike. Maybe we'll meet some outdoorsy girls.

[montana500]

24. overpopulation is a real issue

"The fantasy of an island (and unspokenly white) ecotopia America seemed to motivate many of them -- they were keeping the riff-raff out of their pristine natural preserves. I could feel a hypocrisy about them. They had theirs, everyone else go home."


I have never found these things to be true about the Sierra Club. And lets not call conservation groups brave enough to deal with overpopulation "racists". That's bullshit.

Who's pristine natural reserves? The Sierra Club doesn't own any.

[hunter]

29. It's always brown people who are overpopulating, isn't it?

Bah.

Your post demonstrates almost exactly what I'm talking about. The only proven cure for overpopulation is affluence, and this applies to everyone, of any color. That's the jump we must make. In the short term things may look like they are going downhill as the general affluence of the human race increases, but in the long term this is th only way we will improve our environment.

The Sierra Club is very much about preserving their pristine nature reserves. As a member of the Sierra Club you fly 3000 miles so you can enjoy your Yosemite Back Country permit. You fly to Africa. You fly to Peru. You drive a Prius. Oh boy.

I was inspired to look at the activities of the old chapter I belonged to. They are doing lots of interesting and worthwhile things, but nothing, absolutely fucking nothing to solve the horendous environmental problems everyone on this earth is facing. Life for them apparantly will be a happy suburbia forever. They are going to be deeply shocked when things turn out otherwise. It's pretty much New Orleans now from here on out. The Sierra Club is not radical enough to take on problems of that magnitude. It's become a well meaning social club.

[blindpig]

30. No, zero population growth is for everybody.

Simply because self satisfied checkbook environmentalists advocate a policy does not negate its necessity. The weight of scientific opinion is that humans have exceeded the planet's carrying capacity. IMO, the West is bound to lead by example in this. There are not enough resources on this planet for all to reach the level of affulence of the American middle class, particularly under our current economic system. Some redistribution of wealth wil be necessary in order to raise the standard of living of the masses of humanity. I don't see any way around it if civilization is to survive.

[IrateCitizen]

31. Demographic trends do not occur in a vacuum

I don't think that hunter was saying that less affluent people should be absolved from fighting overpopulation. Rather, I think he was pointing out that demographic and historical trends have shown that decreasing population growth have always come when societies achieve greater affluence. That being the case, we can hardly expect such trends to turn around immediately just because some of us wish it to be so....

[hunter]

32. We tend to equate affluence with consumerism. It doesn't have to be.

The U.S. consumerist model isn't going to work, not even in the United States. It's not working for many people in the United States right now. I would guess that most Americans have their backs against the wall in various ways, and that the only thing that's holding this society together is the propensity of so many of us to blame our various misfortunes on ourselves rather than external social forces. The absurd notion that everyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is very much alive and well in the United States. We mope around alone whenever we fall between the cracks, I shoulda done this, I shoulda done that, instead of hitting the streets with our neighbors and lighting fires under our politicians.

A good example of this would be our "health care crisis." That a so-called civilized "first world" nation like the United States doesn't have a national health care system is absurd. The only possible conclusion is that we are not a civilized nation. (But you knew that already... you hang out on DU.)

Affluence is not a Chevy Tahoe and a MacMansion forty miles from your place of employment. Affluence is a healthy variety of food, a kitchen with running water and a means of cooking, a warm dry place to sleep, a clean toilet, schools for children, and a doctor in the neighborhood who will see you and your family when you are sick.

The tokens by which people feel themselves affluent do not need to consume vast unsupportable quantities of natural resources. Most people in the world will never own a car of the sort that's two tons of metal powered by gasoline. The earth cannot support that. But the earth can support other tokens of affluence -- a home in a trendy neighborhood, nice clothes, sunglasses, an ipod... or in other places maybe a few milk cows and some silver jewelery, as determined by local social customs.

IMO the West is not in any position to "lead by example in this." Some workable vision of a sustainable future may arise from the ashes of U.S. style consumerism, but it's much more likely an environmentally sound and sustainable human society will be developed elsewhere.

[blindpig]

33. Need another word

I agree about the affluence=consumerism thing. In my common usage they are equivalent. Yes, all should be able to live a good life and that is not measured by toys and conspicious consumption.

That the West should lead is an idealistic supposition on my part, given the wealth and power therein. You're probably right, fresh thinking coupled with a lack of vested interests are probably necessary. As for the future, there is much to be learned from Cuba.

[hunter]

34. Oh my, you said "Cuba."

Whadaya want, a flame war here???

:evilgrin:

[NNadir]

37. I wonder how Cuba will keep all of the US boat people out.

Well they've been managing to keep all of the people who escape to Cuba living well. It's amazing that they've been able to accept all of the refugees escaping to their island.

The King of Cuba is a very wise man.

[BeFree]

38. Cuba and Cubans

I've known many a Cuban immigrant. Listened to the history of their escape and a learned a good bit about the land they once lived on.

Almost all the Cubans I've met came to America because they wanted more, more, more, than what a sustainable environment could offer.

From what I understand about Cuba, the island is still pretty much untouched, nearly virgin country.... nearly comparable to one of America's national parks.

According to the newly-minted Americans, most of the people left in Cuba are not interested in making money, driving fancy cars, or living in a mcmansion. No wonder the Cuban economy is so slow, eh?

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine Cuba's part in GHG pollution is a fraction of the U.S.'s?

Well, when the King of Cuba dies, all hells gonna break loose on the island. It's gotta a long way to go before it begins to look like Florida. But it will, and when it does, it too will play a greater part in contributions to GHG pollution. They are so far behind us now.

[blindpig]

40. Laugh now

Cuba is making great strides in sustainable living while we go in the opposite direction.

http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/content/v16.1/martin.html

One day your little funny might come true.

[NNadir]

41. One can always find people who bend over in praise of Cuba.

No one emigrates to Cuba, however, to demonstrate their environmentalism.

I think the claims about the Kingdom of Cuba are nothing more than propaganda. It's not like this propaganda is new. Back in the 1970's when I was a kid, I knew lots of people who went to save the world by harvesting sugar cane in Cuba, in defiance of the (silly) US law. Although many went for the purposes of "demonstrating solidarity," and many came back gushing with accounts of their own nobility in service to the "glorious people's revolution," they did indeed come back, 100% of them.

To me Cuba is just another oppressive third world dictatorship, where people are imprisoned for crimes like being gay, or speaking truth to power, or being mentally ill.

It's just poetic bullshit to represent Cuba as any kind of utopia.

I've already covered this crap elsewhere, and feel no inclination to repeat it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=43969

I got a nice private email for my efforts there, and feel no need to elaborate further.

[XemaSab]

42. Right now the US would have ZPG

if not for immigration.

:shrug:

[barb162]

35. wankers, upper middle class style

[BeFree]

39. It could be better, no doubt

At one time I thought I'd become a life time member of the club.

I used to say: "When the Sierra Club talks, people listen", and I'd say that with knowledge.

Now, the Club is, to me, a symbol of the loss of a great opportunity. Staff have their eyes on the dollar more-so than keeping an eye on the degradation engulfing us.

Once upon a time, John Muir's legacy was a shining beacon of his wisdom, but today is nothing more than base politics at a different level.

But then, most members of the Club were, as one observant outsider noted: "dilettantes".

Oh for what might have been. John Muir must be rolling over in his grave.