Tag Archives: sierra

Naomi Klein says big green groups are more trouble than climate deniers

Naomi Klein says big green groups are more trouble than climate deniers

Ed KashiNaomi Klein.

Progressive journalist and activist Naomi Klein made waves a couple of years ago with an article in The Nation arguing that climate activism and current-day capitalism are incompatible. An appropriate response to the massive threat of climate change “is going to require shredding the free-market ideology that has dominated the global economy for more than three decades,” she argued.

Now, in a new interview with Jason Mark of Earth Island Journal, she lambastes major environmental groups for failing to understand this point, for being too tied to the neoliberal agenda and too cozy with corporations.

I think there is a very deep denialism in the environmental movement among the Big Green groups. And to be very honest with you, I think it’s been more damaging than the right-wing denialism in terms of how much ground we’ve lost. Because it has steered us in directions that have yielded very poor results. I think if we look at the track record of Kyoto, of the UN Clean Development Mechanism, the European Union’s emissions trading scheme — we now have close to a decade that we can measure these schemes against, and it’s disastrous. Not only are emissions up, but you have no end of scams to point to, which gives fodder to the right. The right took on cap-and-trade by saying it’s going to bankrupt us, it’s handouts to corporations, and, by the way, it’s not going to work. And they were right … Not in the bankrupting part, but they were right that this was a massive corporate giveaway, and they were right that it wasn’t going to bring us anywhere near what scientists were saying we needed to do [to] lower emissions. So I think it’s a really important question why the green groups have been so unwilling to follow science to its logical conclusions. …

[For Big Green groups now,] it’s about corporate partnerships. It’s not, “sue the bastards”; it’s, “work through corporate partnerships with the bastards.” …

More than that, it’s casting corporations as the solution, as the willing participants and part of this solution. …

We’ve globalized an utterly untenable economic model of hyperconsumerism. It’s now successfully spreading across the world, and it’s killing us.

It’s not that the green groups were spectators to this — they were partners in this. They were willing participants in this. It’s not every green group. It’s not Greenpeace, it’s not Friends of the Earth, it’s not, for the most part, the Sierra Club. It’s not 350.org, because it didn’t even exist yet. But I think it goes back to the elite roots of the movement, and the fact that when a lot of these conservation groups began there was kind of a noblesse oblige approach to conservation. It was about elites getting together and hiking and deciding to save nature. And then the elites changed. So if the environmental movement was going to decide to fight, they would have had to give up their elite status. And [they] weren’t willing to give up their elite status. I think that’s a huge part of the reason why emissions are where they are.

Like what she’s got to say? Read the rest at Earth Island Journal. And then keep an eye out for Klein’s new book on climate change, due out next year.

Don’t like what she has to say? You’re not alone. Joe Romm at Climate Progress has a thorough takedown, concluding with a quote from Grist’s own David Roberts:

UPDATE: Klein has posted a response to Romm on her website: “if anyone is guilty of taking a sledge hammer to an ally here, I suggest you take a quick glance at what’s in your (bloody) hand.”

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Continue reading here – 

Naomi Klein says big green groups are more trouble than climate deniers

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Naomi Klein says big green groups are more trouble than climate deniers

Bobby Jindal doesn’t think Big Oil should have to clean up its mess

Bobby Jindal doesn’t think Big Oil should have to clean up its mess

Derek Bridges

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants everyone to stop picking on poor oil companies.

Oil and gas companies have ruined coastal wetlands that formerly helped protect Louisiana from storms and floods, but Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) doesn’t believe they should have to pay to repair the damage.

The governor opposes a lawsuit filed last month by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East. The suit seeks billions of dollars from energy companies, including BP and ExxonMobil, to restore coastal ecosystems that have been trampled to make way for oil and gas infrastructure along the state’s coast. The Times-Picayune explains:

Jindal said the state needs to protect and restore the coast, “but this lawsuit is not the way to do it.” [His] statement also called the lawsuit “a potential billion dollar plus windfall” for the attorneys representing the levee authority.

At a meeting dedicated to the lawsuit last week, Jindal and other members of the state’s top levee and restoration board said allegations that the oil and gas industry don’t participate in the state’s restoration efforts are incorrect. They pointed out that a number of the restoration and levee projects actually are being built on industry property or with industry assistance. …

[Jindal] also said the levee authority should join the state’s efforts to seek a higher share of federal oil and gas revenues to pay for coastal restoration.

Enviros have a theory about why Jindal opposes the lawsuit. From The Advocate:

A coalition of environmental groups accused Gov. Bobby Jindal on Wednesday of attempting to quash a coastal erosion lawsuit against oil and gas companies in order to benefit his political contributors.

Jindal has racked up more than $1 million in donations from oil and gas companies and their executives over the past 10 years, according to an analysis of campaign finance reports from organizations including Levees.org, the Sierra Club, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, League of Women Voters and Vietnamese American Young Leaders Association of New Orleans.

The response from Jindal’s spokeperson to the charges: “That’s absurd.”

Alicia Lee

Natural flood control in Louisiana.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Continue reading:  

Bobby Jindal doesn’t think Big Oil should have to clean up its mess

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bobby Jindal doesn’t think Big Oil should have to clean up its mess

Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

350.org

At the Guardian, Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, has an idea about what might be driving the massive expansion of the NSA’s domestic surveillance program that we’ve learned so much about lately. It’s not concerns about religious fundamentalists who hate America. Instead, he suggests, the government is worried about environmental activism:

But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis — or all three.

Who would have thunk? It turns out the U.S. government is worried about climate change, after all. At least if being worried about climate change lets them use all their cool spy gear.

Across the government, security professionals are fretting about natural disasters and global oil shortfalls, Ahmed explains. The Department of Defense has written that “climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked.” They’re nervous about what this means: What are people going to do when they realized they’re, to use the technical term, totally screwed? The Army’s Strategic Studies Institute has suggested that, in the case of a total freak-out, it might be necessary to “use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.”

Who are those hostiles? Why, they might just be environmentalists.

The government tends to see environmentalists in one of two ways. They’re either harmless hippie treehuggers who can easily be ignored or dangerous eco-terrorists who need to be watched. The defense and intelligence people incline toward the latter view.

As early as 2008, DHS contractors were looking into environmental action and “labeled environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, the Humane Society and the Audubon Society as ‘mainstream organizations with known or possible links to eco-terrorism.’” And as Adam Federman has been documenting, law enforcement and corporations have been spying on environmentalists who are fighting against fracking and tar-sands development, even infiltrating direct action groups like the Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance.

This isn’t just a problem in the United States, as Ahmed points out:

[I]nternal police documents obtained by the Guardian in 2009 revealed that environment activists had been routinely categorised as “domestic extremists” targeting “national infrastructure” as part of a wider strategy tracking protest groups and protestors.

Ahmed’s article mainly establishes that the government has concerns about political groups of various stripes, and also worries about the effect of an oil shortfall on society — in other words, it’s pretty far from an irrefutable case that the NSA is primarily targeting environmentalists. But we’re just saying, if you signed up for any of Grist’s newsletters (thanks!), Barack Obama probably is reading your email. Say hi from us!

Source

Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks, The Guardian

Sarah Laskow is a reporter based in New York City who covers environment, energy, and sustainability issues, among other things. Follow her on Twitter.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Visit site: 

Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Lasko, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

Pesticides are blowing into California’s mountains, poisoning frogs

Pesticides are blowing into California’s mountains, poisoning frogs

Shutterstock

Not all of the pesticide stays where it is sprayed.

Pesticides sprayed over farms in California’s Central Valley appear to be blowing up into the Sierra Nevada mountain range, where they’ve been found in the flesh of frogs in national parks.

Such farm chemicals are thought to be contributing to the ongoing decline of frogs and other amphibians in the Sierra. Mountain hikers used to need to take care to not step on frogs, but now the animals are difficult to find. Sierra amphibians help control insect numbers and provide food for birds and other wildlife, but their numbers are plummeting as they succumb to disease, habitat loss, and other environmental problems.

Researchers collected Pacific chorus frogs from Yosemite National Park, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Giant Sequoia National Monument, Stanislaus National Forest, and Lake Tahoe in 2009 and 2010. They reported in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry that chemical cocktails of fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides were found accumulating in frogs from each of the sites. None of the pesticides found by the scientists were sprayed close to where the frogs were captured, but all of the pesticides were used in the Central Valley.

“This is the first time we’ve detected many of these compounds, including fungicides, in the Sierra Nevada,” lead researcher Kelly Smalling said. “The data generated by this study support past research on the potential of pesticides to be transported by wind or rain from the Central Valley to the Sierras.”

From the paper:

The hypothesis that pesticides are one of many stressors responsible for amphibian population declines continues to present a challenge because of the large number of pesticides in use, the continual changes in pesticides used, and the difficulty in determining routes of exposures in the wild. …

Their close association with wetlands makes amphibians potentially more sensitive to pesticides because they are exposed to seasonal changes in pesticide use. Even if concentrations are not high enough to be lethal, sublethal effects such as decreased resistance to disease may affect amphibian populations.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit link: 

Pesticides are blowing into California’s mountains, poisoning frogs

Posted in Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Paradise, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pesticides are blowing into California’s mountains, poisoning frogs

Solar installations soar in California

Solar installations soar in California

The Golden State is going into overdrive on solar power.

California utility customers installed a record-breaking 391 megawatts of solar power systems last year. That was a banner year for the nation’s largest photovoltaic rebate scheme, with installations up 26 percent compared with 2011.

Those panels were installed with the assistance of the California Solar Initiative [PDF], a $2.2 billion program started in 2007 that aims to help residents meet the costs of installing 1,940 megawatts of solar capacity by the end of 2016. The program is on track to meet that target well ahead of schedule, meaning incentives will begin to dwindle.

From the L.A. Times:

The bulk of that money has been poured into incentives, per-watt rebates that have gradually declined as the solar industry grows. This is on top of the federal Solar Investment Tax Credit — 30% of the cost of each residential or commercial system is paid back to the owner of the home or business — and the net metering that accounts for all but 92 megawatts of the state’s existing solar capacity. Net metering doles out energy credits to customers for the solar power they produce but don’t consume, easing the strain of monthly electric bills. …

“Customers are choosing solar at a time when there are all sorts of major challenges to traditional energy,” [the Sierra Club’s Evan] Gillespie said, citing the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. California’s major utilities are scrambling to draft a long-term plan to make up for the lost power. As officials consider their alternative options, Gillespie said, “It’s amazing that rooftop is now ready to play an integral role in energy that San Onofre would have provided.”

“California’s groundbreaking efforts to encourage homeowners and businesses to install rooftop solar panels were so successful in 2012,” the San Jose Mercury News notes, “that the program is now effectively winding down.”

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original article:  

Solar installations soar in California

Posted in Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Solar installations soar in California

U.S. will help electrify Africa, but will the energy be clean or dirty?

U.S. will help electrify Africa, but will the energy be clean or dirty?

Stephen Koigi

Obama addressing an audience in Cape Town, South Africa, on Sunday.

President Obama said on Monday that it’s “unacceptable” that more than two-thirds of sub-Saharan Africans don’t have access to electricity, and he has a plan to help solve the problem. On Sunday, he unveiled a new Power Africa initiative intended to double electricity access in the region.

The initiative calls for more than $7 billion in U.S. funding over five years to help build new power plants in six African countries and bring electricity to more than 20 million households and businesses. It’s also intended to help American companies get a foothold in Africa.

Obama introduced the program in a speech in South Africa on Sunday:

Now we’re going to talk about power — Power Africa — a new initiative that will double access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. Double it. We’re going to start by investing $7 billion in U.S. government resources. We’re going to partner with the private sector, who themselves have committed more than $9 billion in investment. And in partnership with African nations, we’re going to develop new sources of energy. We’ll reach more households not just in cities, but in villages and on farms. We’ll expand access for those who live currently off the power grid. And we’ll support clean energy to protect our planet and combat climate change.

Clean energy sounds good, but how much of the new electricity will be clean? Not all. Here’s what the White House says in a fact sheet: “Power Africa will build on Africa’s enormous power potential, including new discoveries of vast reserves of oil and gas, and the potential to develop clean geothermal, hydro, wind and solar energy.” Planned projects include the first large-scale wind projects in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as biomass mini power plants in Tanzania. The plan also calls for helping Uganda and Mozambique develop their oil and gas resources in a “transparent and environmentally sustainable manner.”

One big outstanding question: Will coal plants be involved? In his big climate speech last week, Obama called for “an end to public financing for new coal plants overseas unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there’s no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity.” Will the administration stick to that no-new-coal-plant pledge, or try to use the no-other-viable-way loophole?

It’s not heartening to see that the bulk of the funding for Power Africa — $5 billion — will be in the form of loans and financing assistance administered by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), which has a dirty record when it comes to power projects.

From an April post in the Sierra Club’s Compass blog:

Under [Chairman Fred] Hochberg’s leadership, the bank has ignored a Congressional mandate to direct 10% of financing towards renewables, and instead gone on a fossil fuel bender. Ex Im approved $900 million in financing for the 4,000 megawatt Sasan coal-fired power station in India, which displaced entire villages and used dangerous labor practices that lead to worker deaths. It directed $800 million in financing for the 4,800 MW Kusile power station in South Africa, despite local protests and the fact that the area around the project already exceeded pollution limits set by the South African government. Essentially, the Ex Im Bank is completely at odds with President Obama’s desire to address climate change.

The nonprofit Pacific Environment put together [PDF] this graph that dramatically demonstrates the Ex-Im’s bias for fossil fuel projects:

Pacific EnvironmentClick to embiggen.

While it’s encouraging that America intends help Africans gain access to electricity, here’s hoping it isn’t done using the health-ruining and climate-wrecking fossil-fuel technologies of yesteryear.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View post – 

U.S. will help electrify Africa, but will the energy be clean or dirty?

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.S. will help electrify Africa, but will the energy be clean or dirty?

California might borrow $500 million from its climate fund

California might borrow $500 million from its climate fund

Shutterstock

One of the great features of California’s cap-and-trade program is that all the money that the state raises by selling carbon allowances to polluters is supposed to be plowed back into initiatives that help cool the climate. So not only does the program limit and reduce carbon emissions; it also forces polluters to pay to undo some of the harm that they cause.

But with such a big stack of green sitting there, staring the notoriously cash-poor state of California in its desperate face, how can a government resist?

And so it’s starting to look as though $500 million raised by selling carbon allowances could be funneled away from green programs and loaned instead to the state’s general fund. The L.A. Times reports:

Gov. Jerry Brown sparked controversy Tuesday when he proposed to shift $500 million out of the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and loan it to the state general fund as part of the effort to balance the budget. …

Lending that money would be “extraordinarily disappointing,” said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California. “The governor will be delaying opportunities to use those funds to actually get critical reductions in global warming pollution,” she said.

If the state delays using the funds for reforestation and energy efficiency projects, that will delay the positive environmental effects of those efforts, she added.

Taking money away from global warming projects is so … uncool.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

California might borrow $500 million from its climate fund

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California might borrow $500 million from its climate fund

Should America export its fracked gas? Why greens say no.

Should America export its fracked gas? Why greens say no.

Dominion

Cove Point, built as a natural gas import terminal, destined to be a natural gas export terminal.

Frackers already contaminate America’s groundwatermake people sickproduce radioactive waste, and contribute to earthquakes. Processing and moving the natural gas that they produce leads to nasty spills and deadly explosions. And cheap natural gas makes it harder for renewable energy to compete.

But, hey, at least almost all of that cheap fuel is being used by Americans in America, right?

That may not continue to be the case. The Obama administration is poised to rule on a slew of applications to export natural gas to other countries through hulking industrial terminals dotted along U.S. coasts. Over the weekend, Obama appeared to reveal his hand on the issue, forecasting that the U.S. would likely become a net gas exporter by 2020, reports The Financial Times.

According to the newspaper, administration officials fear that a restriction on natural gas exports, as is being sought by American environmentalists and manufacturers, would send a bad signal about the country’s support for free trade.

Environmentalists fear that allowing such exports would exacerbate the fracking boom, harm the environment along the routes of new natural gas pipelines, and cause pollution and industrial accidents at natural gas export terminals. (The manufacturers aren’t worried about any of that; they just want to keep the cheap gas to themselves.)

One such export terminal is planned at Cove Point, Md., along the shores of Chesapeake Bay and close to the vast Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves. Dominion, the energy company that owns the facility, received federal permission in 2011 to export gas through the terminal to certain countries. Now it is seeking permits needed to liquefy natural gas there before loading it onto tanker ships. Like other planned natural gas export hubs, Cove Point was built to receive imported natural gas, back before America’s fracking boom took hold, and now it’s being converted into an export hub.

The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and other environmental groups jointly filed documents [PDF] on Friday calling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct a thorough environmental review of Dominion’s proposal.

From a press release issued by the groups:

The coalition argues the development of this terminal in Lusby, MD would result in major damage to the Chesapeake Bay, coastal forests, and the local economy, which currently support more than a trillion dollars in economic activity from the seafood and tourism industries. …

Major concerns include a substantial increase in ship traffic of huge — and potentially explosive — LNG [liquefied natural gas] tankers on the Bay and to Cove Point, as well as the risks posed by dumping billions of gallons of wastewater into this large and complex estuary, made up of a network of rivers, wetlands, and forests.

Residents of nearby Myersville, Md., meanwhile, object to Dominion’s plans [PDF] to install a large natural gas compressor inside their town.

The issue of natural gas exports is scheduled to be debated today during a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing. From The Hill:

The House hearing on Tuesday will touch on 20 proposals under Energy Department (DOE) review that would green light exports to nations that lack a free-trade agreement with the United States.

Such deals face more administrative scrutiny, as federal law requires them to be in the national interest. Democrats have urged the department to exercise caution, fearing approving too many will cause domestic prices to spike.

Meanwhile, energy-hungry foreign governments — including those in Japan and India — have lobbied the White House to promptly approve applications for exports.

Some lawmakers have accused President Obama of slow-walking the decisions. They fear the United States will miss out as countries such as Australia and Canada rush into the market.

So stay tuned on this one. The damage that fracking causes in America could soon be exacerbated, for the good of the world. And for the good of the energy industry.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Credit: 

Should America export its fracked gas? Why greens say no.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Green Light, LG, ONA, Pines, ProPublica, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should America export its fracked gas? Why greens say no.

Why haven’t the big green groups divested from fossil fuels?

Why haven’t the big green groups divested from fossil fuels?

Dirty money.

Colleges and universities have started to do it. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have started to do it. But many of the biggest environmental and conservation groups in the U.S. still haven’t made any moves to dump their investments in oil, gas, and coal companies, reports Naomi Klein in The Nation:

One would assume that green groups would want to make absolutely sure that the money they have raised in the name of saving the planet is not being invested in the companies whose business model requires cooking said planet, and which have been sabotaging all attempts at serious climate action for more than two decades.

But in some cases at least, that was a false assumption. …

Conservation International, notorious for its partnerships with oil companies and other bad actors (the CEO of Northrop Grumman is on its board, for God’s sake), has close to $22 million invested in publicly traded securities and, according to a spokesperson, “We do not have any explicit policy prohibiting investment in energy companies.” The same goes for the Ocean Conservancy, which has $14.4 million invested in publicly traded securities, including hundreds of thousands in “energy,” “materials” and “utilities” holdings. A spokesperson confirmed in writing that the organization does “not have an environmental or social screen investment policy.”

Neither organization would divulge how much of its holdings were in fossil fuel companies or release a list of its investments. But according to Dan Apfel, executive director of the Responsible Endowments Coalition, unless an institution specifically directs its investment managers not to invest in fossil fuels, it will almost certainly hold some stock, simply because those stocks (including coal-burning utilities) make up about 13 percent of the US market, according to one standard index. “All investors are basically invested in fossil fuels,” says Apfel. “You can’t be an investor that is not invested in fossil fuels, unless you’ve actually worked very hard to ensure that you’re not.”

Another group that appears very far from divesting is the Wildlife Conservation Society. Its financial statement for fiscal year 2012 describes a subcategory of investments that includes “energy, mining, oil drilling, and agricultural businesses.” How much of WCS’s $377 million endowment is being held in energy and drilling companies? It failed to provide that information despite repeated requests.

The [World Wildlife Fund]-US told me that it doesn’t invest directly in corporations—but it refused to answer questions about whether it applies environmental screens to its very sizable mixed-asset funds. The National Wildlife Federation Endowment used to apply environmental screens for its $25.7 million of investments in publicly traded securities, but now, according to a spokesperson, it tells its investment managers to “look for best-in-class companies who were implementing conservation, environmental and sustainable practices.” In other words, not a fossil fuel divestment policy.

Meanwhile, the Nature Conservancy—the richest of all the green groups—has at least $22.8 million invested in the energy sector, according to its 2012 financial statements. Along with WCS, TNC completely refused to answer any of my questions or provide any further details about its holdings or policies.

Alongside her article, Klein has published a “cheat sheet” listing 14 big green groups and specifics about what they are — or are not — doing to get their financial houses in order. The Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society come out smelling the rosiest. (Klein is on the board of 350.org, which has been pushing a divestment campaign.)

Over at Forbes.com, Tim Worstall plays the contrarian:

[I]t seems most righteous to take the profits being made in the [fossil fuel] field to use to campaign against those profits. … We, of course, can then take the moral decision as to what to do with that extra money: buy solar cells, hug panda bears, whatever. I myself might use it to subsidise the research I already do into how to make fuel cells.

Do you buy that logic? Tell us below in comments.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from – 

Why haven’t the big green groups divested from fossil fuels?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why haven’t the big green groups divested from fossil fuels?

Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform

Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform

It was notable when Bill McKibben of 350.org and Philip Radford of Greenpeace recently came out in support of immigration-reform legislation.

But it’s really notable that the Sierra Club has now joined them. Over the past decade and a half, the club has had vicious leadership battles over immigration and population. But now the board of directors, which is elected by the group’s 1.4 million members, is unanimously agreed. From Politico:

The Sierra Club’s board voted Wednesday to support comprehensive immigration reform …

The decision is a major shift for the group, which has a storied past over the issue.

Sierra Club leaders in the mid-2000s fought off an insurgent effort trying to have the club take an explicitly anti-immigration stance, with some members claiming it was needed to overcome the effects of more people living more consumptive American life styles. The effort fell apart after a pitched battle.

Other environmental groups have historically helped financially support immigration reform opponents like Numbers USA and Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Here’s the official position adopted by the Sierra Club board:

Currently at least 11 million people live in the U.S. in the shadows of our society. Many of them work in jobs that expose them to dangerous conditions, chemicals and pesticides, and many more of them live in areas with disproportionate levels of toxic air, water, and soil pollution. To protect clean air and water and prevent the disruption of our climate, we must ensure that those who are most disenfranchised and most threatened by pollution within our borders have the voice to fight polluters and advocate for climate solutions without fear.

The Sierra Club takes a position to support an equitable path to citizenship for residents of the United States who lack official documentation. America’s undocumented population should be able to earn legalization and a timely pathway to citizenship, with all the rights to fully participate in our democracy, including influencing environmental and climate policies. The pathway to citizenship should be free of unreasonable barriers, and should facilitate keeping families together and reuniting those that are split whenever possible.

If you like (or hate!) this news, you might want to check out another recent Grist post on the issue: How immigration reform can lead us to a stronger environmental movement.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on

Twitter

and

Google+

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the original post – 

Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform