What kind of organization is Sierra Club? ... by gimleteye

"Sierra Club is no longer a grassroots organization," December McSherry tells Politico in response to the controversy over the nation's oldest environmental group taking $26 million in money from gas interests tied to Chesapeake Energy. To others, according to former Palm Beach Post writer Bob King, it is "a symptom of what's gone wrong in recent years with the nation's largest grassroots environmental group."

Former Club director Carl Pope was lambasted in 2008 for accepting a multi-million dollar donation from Clorox, whose production processes and products are polluting. Bad energy and corporations, good Sierra Club?

Environmental groups need money to survive, to pay staff and to afford programming costs. That is not exactly news, but what is-- and unreported-- is how the Great Recession has deeply eroded organization budgets. I was a leader of Sierra Club during the late 1990's and early 2000's. At public forum, I never got used to the bankers and exploiters poking at Sierra Club for being a "rich environmental group". Nothing could have been further from the truth.

At least in Florida, for Sierra Club those years represented a period of difficult transition. An older generation of environmental leadership was leaving the stage, and in important respects the stage itself was vastly different from the one that helped bring forward environmental issues to the public domain in the 1960's and 1970's.

In Miami, I came to the conclusion that the massive urbanization of South Florida not only harmed our natural heritage but had rapidly depleted the pool of capable volunteers. I know exactly how important grass roots are to civic organizations, and I remember clearly how upset I was when one leader of the Audubon Society publicly said, in the early 2000's, that "grass roots are dead".

Sierra Club is a grass roots organization in Florida and has suffered through the inefficiencies that, by definition, accompany decision making from the bottom, up. But even grass roots groups need funding support. The fact that Sierra Club, almost uniquely among nationally-based organizations, took hard line and sometimes political positions against exploiters and the status quo made it even more difficult to raise funds.

This only worsened in the Great Recession. The small grass roots group for which I volunteer as president, Friends of the Everglades (yes, we could use your million dollar or twenty five dollar contribution, today!), is hardly alone in being pressed for membership and, especially, for members willing to give generously to protect our air, water and natural resources.

Any civic organization can verify, it has gotten harder and harder as the economy ratcheted down. For environmental groups-- whose stands are grounded in opposition to polluting industries -- it is more and more difficult as unlimited piles of money are pushed from corporations into politics.

The money Sierra Club took from entities related to Chesapeake Energy was to help fund its national "Beyond Coal" campaign. lt was less clear, then, than it is today is that natural gas-- an industry that kept energy costs far lower in the U.S. than they would otherwise have been-- comes at its own severe costs to neighbors and communities. Moreover, the industry has vigorously and successfully lobbied (thank you, Halliburton) from preventing full disclosure of chemicals and pollution its activities cause. On the other hand, isn't the enemy of my enemy, my friend?

The conundrums facing Sierra Club and its environmental brethren multiply. Sierra Club is part of a national reconciliation towards a sustainable energy economy. That doesn't necessarily mean the Club is closer than the general public to reconciling internal conflicts about reducing, changing or eliminating the prerogatives and benefits of the hydrocarbon economy. What is worse: coal or natural gas? Nuclear or other heavily subsidized new energy technologies like solar or wind-- that also have hidden costs?

As I write these words, I am in India where the crush of humanity and aspirations for a better, modern future crash headlong into the worldwide crisis of pollution and climate change. At every turn, the ruthless human drive to succeed is on parade. The poverty, even the garbage pickers wearing Miami Heat t shirts and Yankee baseball caps: the irrepressible drive to modernize is a contagion.

So I am not inclined to cynically knock Sierra Club as a representative of the coal industry did in Politico, imitating Desi Arnez,"Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do." Taking the cash from gas wasn't wrong, so long as Sierra Club doesn't pull any punches that might otherwise serve to protect the gas industry criticism or from absorbing the full costs of its pollution. Would I take money from Big Sugar? No. Would I take money from the producers of Stevia or Splendida, even if their activities were polluting?

I guess what I am saying is that there are caveats, everywhere. We can't turn without bumping into patterns of consumption that are harmful, and we need a whole lot of help and honesty to assess the costs of pollution when and where they occur. Maybe, in time, the grass roots will re-awaken and revive. In the meantime, send your contribution to Sierra Club, Friends of the Everglades, Tropical Audubon, Clean Water Action, National Parks Conservation and the Urban Environment League to name just a few.

Allow these groups to do the work you don't have the time or energy to do.


Sierra Club under fire for taking gas cash https://www.politicopro.com/story/energy/?id=8959 By BOB KING | 2/3/12 4:34 PM EST The Sierra Club’s admission of past financial ties to the natural gas industry left a sour aftertaste with many environmental activists Friday. Some praised the organization for finally coming clean. But to others, the revelation that the Sierra Club had accepted $26 million from gas interests tied to Chesapeake Energy until 2010 is a symptom of what’s gone wrong in recent years with the nation’s largest grassroots environmental group. “That shows you that the Sierra Club is no longer a grassroots organization,” said former member December McSherry, who used to serve on the energy committee of Sierra’s Florida chapter. In 2008, McSherry was one of many Sierra Club members who objected to an endorsement deal the group made with Clorox. Like that corporate transaction, she said, the Chesapeake donations should have been open to debate among the Sierra Club’s members. “I can’t believe they took that much money from Chesapeake without it going through lots of discussion,” she said Friday. “What an insult to communities whose water supplies have been affected.” But John Detwiler, a member of the Pennsylvania group Marcellus Protest, called the revelation a sign of how much has changed in the gas debate. “I think it shows how far we’ve come in public awareness on the fracking issue that it’s now considered a scandal that an environmental group is standing too close to the natural gas industry,” Detwiler said. Detwiler said any other environmental organizations that have accepted gas industry money should disclose that as well. “I think that’s just good organizational hygiene,” he said. Jim Sconyers, chairman of the Sierra Club’s West Virginia chapter, which has also been embroiled in the Marcellus Shale debate, called the Chesapeake donations an “unfortunate” episode he’s willing to move past. “I believe everyone thought it was probably a good idea at the time,” he said. “We learn from what we now see was a mistake.” Time Magazine reported Thursday that the money had come mostly from Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon and helped fund the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign. The Sierra Club accepted the donations from 2007 to 2010, during a period when then-leader Carl Pope was joining McClendon in promoting natural gas as an environmentally friendlier “bridge fuel” alternative to coal. After the Time article appeared, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune acknowledged the donations in an item on his “Coming Clean” blog. Brune, who took his post in 2010, wrote that he soon persuaded the Sierra Club board to reject any further donations from the gas industry. (Time says the club turned down $30 million.) “We cannot accept money from an industry we need to change,” Brune wrote. But still, the organization didn’t disclose the donations to its 1.4 million members. Readers’ responses on Brune’s blog ranged from disgust to praise. “How did the Club get to a point where $25 million could be accepted from the CEO of Chesapeake Energy and it was kept secret from members of the Club?” one reader wrote. Said another: “The gas drillers seem to have their tentacles reaching into every aspect of our lives ... 4-H, church, media, politics, schools and now our environmental organizations. Nothing is sacred.” But another responded: “Thank you, Michael, for your integrity.” The news brought a bemused reaction from one coal industry spokesman. “It’s going to be surprising to some people that they would take money from a shale gas driller at the same time that Sierra Club members across the country are complaining about the impact of fracking,” National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich told POLITICO. “As Desi Arnaz said, ‘Lucy, you’ve got some explaining to do.’” Popovich said that if anyone was hurt by the Sierra Club’s alliance with Chesapeake, it was supporters of renewable fuels that are now being priced out of the market by ultra-low natural gas prices. “With friends like the Sierra Club, the renewable fuels industry doesn’t need any enemies,” he said. In his blog post, Brune wrote that the Chesapeake donations came during a period when Sierra activists around the country were becoming “increasingly alarmed” by the gas industry’s use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to tap natural gas deposits in shale. Originally, he wrote, “The idea was that we shared at least one common purpose — to move our country away from dirty coal.” But he added, “By the time I assumed leadership of the Club in March 2010, our view of natural gas had changed — so I made sure our policy did, too.” This isn’t the first dispute within the Sierra Club about corporate money, however. In early 2008, Sierra Club members across the country — including the Florida chapter — objected when the national organization made a deal to endorse a line of environmentally friendly cleansers from Clorox, a company the critics denounced as a “major polluter.” Shortly afterward, the organization suspended the entire Florida chapter and ousted its elected leaders to resolve what it called a long-running internal divide that had rendered the chapter dysfunctional. But members like McSherry said they were convinced that the criticism of the Clorox deal was one of the reasons. “What’s next?” she asked. “Is the nuclear industry going to start making donations to the Sierra Club? Are they going to accept it?” Detwiler, from Marcellus Protest, said his organization has been disappointed in the stances of several large environmental groups — including the Sierra Club — that have supported the notion of natural gas as a bridge fuel, or which talk about regulating fracking instead of banning it. But now, he said, “It’s good to see the Sierra Club stepping forward.” “I think when somebody comes around, it’s not necessarily good to criticize them for how long it took them to see the light,” Detwiler said. Claire Sandberg, co-founder of the New York state group Water Defense, called Brune’s revelation “a brave move.” She said other major green groups should take stands to oppose fracking and gas-friendly legislation. “I hope that other environmental voices will follow the Sierra Club’s lead in debunking this plan to make America addicted to fracked gas,” she said.