Skip to comments.Sierra Club faces gas-cash fallout
Posted on 02/10/2012 1:14:37 PM PST by george76
Is $26 million worth the reputation of a venerable, 1.4 million member environmental group ? The Sierra Club may be about to find out.
the 120-year-old organizations hushed financial marriage to the natural gas industry and its just-as-secretive divorce have left some long-time supporters feeling angry, betrayed or misled. The news cut especially deep for activists who have spent years fighting the spread of shale gas drilling in states like New York and Pennsylvania.
The Sierra Club quietly accepted $26 million in donations from gas industry interests from 2007 to 2010 years when the groups national leaders were talking up gas as a cleaner, greener bridge fuel alternative to coal.
I think it betrays all the grass-roots volunteers, said Kate Bartholomew, a gas activist who is also an elected member of the executive committee that oversees the Sierra Club's statewide chapter in New York.
The leaders should have opened up sooner, Bartholomew said.
How do you hide $25 million?
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
This is the group that gave Colorado pine beetles.
So if the timber industry had got on their knees in front of the Sierra Club’s winkie, people in my home town in Southern Oregon would still be working? Amazing.
In Kansas, there has been an ongoing fight to get two coal power plants approved. We were bombarded with ‘green’ commercials, telling us how dirty coal power was.
Who paid for these commercials? ONEOK...a large natural gas company.
The gas companies have been skirting this line for a while now...and if the whacko environmentalists (whom they financed) succeed in halting fracking, they will regret it.
The membership are Useless Idiot cultists, and Polutico acts surprised?
LOL, just Rats trying to disassociate before the cover gets blown.
Fly ash emitted by a power planta by-product from burning coal for electricitycarries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. This happens when the fly ash is burned and the uranium and thorium contained in the original lumps are concentrated up to 10X in the fly ash and out the smokestack it goes.
I then went on to note that it might be that the number of trees on the eastern seaboard in the original 13 States that existed in 1776 was UNDENIABLE LESS than the number of trees in the combined 50 states we have today. "He's lying by using clever words!" screamed my friend.
"I guess it just depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." I replied.
There defines my main gripe with the other side. A sexist, woman-exploiting, adulterous, slimebag of a man is their hero, because he cleverly lied his way out of trouble. But they are outraged at even the PERCEPTION of a Republican being silver-tongued. There's your "universal equality" for you.
I really don’t know how much fly ash gets released...but I know alot of it is caught by electrostatic scrubbers, which have shakers to drop it into bins.
We put this fly ash in road subgrade and concrete mixes.
So, we are essentially putting it everywhere. That’s right - are you sitting in a relatively new office building? Then you’re surrounded by flyash. That new road you drove on today? There’s flyash under it, and the concrete curbs are loaded with it.
A quick search led me to a Scientific American article...if you live next to the plant, you get 18 millirem a year...which is fairly small. I don’t think radiation is a big problem with coal. The fact that it is so much worse than nuke power just illustrates how much safer nuke power is....but there is no real radiation danger at all from coal.
If you are using this as an argument to use nuclear power, I would quit doing that. Both types of plant have pros and cons, and reasonable people can understand them, without hyperbole.
The real story here isn’t the Sierra Club receiving the money but why the gas industry would give them the money in the first place. The only rational explanation is they’re playing two sides of the coin; making people believe they’re all for drilling while at the same time supporting those people who they know will block in their way. This way they create artificially high prices by not being able to drill for more gas. Yet they can cry that the Sierra Club is fighting them. Smart move playing both sides of the street and playing the rest of us as suckers.
The Sierra Club quietly accepted $26 million in donations from gas industry interests from 2007 to 2010 -- years when the groupâs national leaders were talking up gas as a cleaner, greener "bridge fuel" alternative to coal.The USSR funded leftist groups for years, leaving them high and dry when the end came -- so they flocked to the OPEC nations, other jihadist sources, and of course China, as well as Russia. Now spot the trolls.
Thanks for posting this. Wish someone would have pinged me to it!!!
How will these people ever get in their Outbacks and Forresters in the morning? The same way their smelly asses climbed into a Volvo 20 years ago, that's how. D*ckhead, first.
Enviro group gets donation, backs off.
or...Enviro group gets 'grant' to do research.
Either way, it is far cheaper to give them a million dollar donation than face an indefinitely delayed project and the possible loss of milllions of dollars in lease payments because the leases expired while the Enviros tied everything up in court.
If that sounds like a protection rackett, using the courts for 'muscle', there might be a reason.