Comments on: Why I No Longer Support The Sierra Club. http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/05/07/why-i-no-longer-support-the-sierra-club/ Sustainability, Environment, Progressive Politics, Peak Oil, Going Green. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:29:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/05/07/why-i-no-longer-support-the-sierra-club/#comment-28343 Richard Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:27:21 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=1686#comment-28343 Damn I just bought a bottle of green works because I thought it was good for the environment. Clorox stoops to deceiving people who buy based on their conscience. Real nice. Damn I just bought a bottle of green works because I thought it was good for the environment. Clorox stoops to deceiving people who buy based on their conscience. Real nice.

]]> By: snowisfun http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/05/07/why-i-no-longer-support-the-sierra-club/#comment-24707 snowisfun Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:22:44 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=1686#comment-24707 Adding to what was written by me. This poster is a member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. Sierra Club has done things which benefit endangered species, as have the Audubdon Society (this poster was a former member of the Natl. Audubon Society) among others. But on nuclear energy, Sierra Club is wrong. It must be said that other environmental groups previously hostile to nuclear power now support it such as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) & some have become neutral to it. Stephen Tindale, former executive Director of Greenpeace U.K. was hostile to nuclear power & spoke against it for years but in 2009, he changed his view & now supports nuclear power, forming the group Climate Answers. The Sierra Club could @least be neutral on nuclear powerplants. The science on nuclear power is always advancing & @ the very least, neutrally look @ advances in nuclear energy. Newer nuclear powerplants use less Uranium & the Uranium lasts longer with less waste. They already have the knowledge as France does to reprocess the spent fuel rods thus reducing nuclear waste. Yes, we must be humble about nuclear energy, but nuclear power & environmentalism can be consistent. Getting back to Sierra Club, Sierra Club has given too much credit to renewable energy, esp. windmills. Now I support renewables be it geothermal, hydro, solar & windmill but renewable energies require more land & generate less energy. With windmills, they've been overhyped by the Sierra Club, with minor discussions of the land needed for windmills, the less energy generated by them & the birds & bats incl. endangered birds who have been killed by windmills. Solar panels are intermittent & solar panels also have hazardous wastes. Sierra Club has also gotten involved in topics which is debatable as it relates to environmentalism. Sierra Club is officially pro-choice on abortion, when they should be neutral. I'm pro-choice on abortion, but it's my view that environmental groups must have neutrality when it comes to topics such as abortion & Sierra Club has gotten involved with the immigration issue. Why can't the Sierra Club be neutral on these topics? Even the global warming debate has been discussed way too much-there isn't a consensus by climatologists on whether it's man made or a natural event. But why can't Sierra Club & other environmental groups keep it simple & just say that cleaning pollution & having better air & water are good things regardless of whether or not man made global warming is happening ? Anyhow those are my thoughts & again, it's consistent to be a supporter of nuclear power & an environmentalist. Adding to what was written by me. This poster is a member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. Sierra Club has done things which benefit endangered species, as have the Audubdon Society (this poster was a former member of the Natl. Audubon Society) among others.

But on nuclear energy, Sierra Club is wrong. It must be said that other environmental groups previously hostile to nuclear power now support it such as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) & some have become neutral to it. Stephen Tindale, former executive Director of Greenpeace U.K. was hostile to nuclear power & spoke against it for years but in 2009, he changed his view & now supports nuclear power, forming the group Climate Answers.

The Sierra Club could @least be neutral on nuclear powerplants. The science on nuclear power is always advancing & @ the very least, neutrally look @ advances in nuclear energy. Newer nuclear powerplants use less Uranium & the Uranium lasts longer with less waste. They already have the knowledge as France does to reprocess the spent fuel rods thus reducing nuclear waste. Yes, we must be humble about nuclear energy, but nuclear power & environmentalism can be consistent.

Getting back to Sierra Club, Sierra Club has given too much credit to renewable energy, esp. windmills. Now I support renewables be it geothermal, hydro, solar & windmill but renewable energies require more land & generate less energy. With windmills, they’ve been overhyped by the Sierra Club, with minor discussions of the land needed for windmills, the less energy generated by them & the birds & bats incl. endangered birds who have been killed by windmills. Solar panels are intermittent & solar panels also have hazardous wastes.

Sierra Club has also gotten involved in topics which is debatable as it relates to environmentalism. Sierra Club is officially pro-choice on abortion, when they should be neutral. I’m pro-choice on abortion, but it’s my view that environmental groups must have neutrality when it comes to topics such as abortion & Sierra Club has gotten involved with the immigration issue. Why can’t the Sierra Club be neutral on these topics?

Even the global warming debate has been discussed way too much-there isn’t a consensus by climatologists on whether it’s man made or a natural event. But why can’t Sierra Club & other environmental groups keep it simple & just say that cleaning pollution & having better air & water are good things regardless of whether or not man made global warming is happening ? Anyhow those are my thoughts & again, it’s consistent to be a supporter of nuclear power & an environmentalist.

]]> By: david http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/05/07/why-i-no-longer-support-the-sierra-club/#comment-24700 david Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:34:25 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=1686#comment-24700 As I am sure most readers know, I have a huge problem with trading principles for money. Having written about Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and Sustainable Brands all selling out for cash, it's getting harder to find TRUE organizations that don't trade their ideals in for the big bucks. As I am sure most readers know, I have a huge problem with trading principles for money. Having written about Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and Sustainable Brands all selling out for cash, it’s getting harder to find TRUE organizations that don’t trade their ideals in for the big bucks.

]]> By: Brenna http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/05/07/why-i-no-longer-support-the-sierra-club/#comment-24699 Brenna Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:19:13 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=1686#comment-24699 The Sierra Club has long been moving away from its grassroots activism and toward a mainstream organization with strong corporate ties. I am all for raising awareness through raising large amounts of money, even through mainstream corporations. But, when principles are compromised for money? That is not acceptable and begs the question, what next? John Muir, Ansel Adams, and David Brower are all rolling in their graves over this... The Sierra Club has long been moving away from its grassroots activism and toward a mainstream organization with strong corporate ties. I am all for raising awareness through raising large amounts of money, even through mainstream corporations. But, when principles are compromised for money? That is not acceptable and begs the question, what next?

John Muir, Ansel Adams, and David Brower are all rolling in their graves over this…

]]>