Should the Sierra Club Accept Donations from Polluters?
Referring to the fact that the Sierra Club accepted a $26 million donation from Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company, check this out: “Runners shouldn’t smoke, priests shouldn’t touch the kids, and environmentalists should never take money from polluters,” John Passacantando, a former director of Greenpeace who is now an environmental consultant, said in an interview.
Wow, Mr. Passacantando is one articulate fellow. But is he categorically right?
In this case the money was used exclusively to promote the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign, one of the most remarkable effective PR efforts in human history. As a direct result, tens of millions of Americans who would have otherwise remained ignorant of or apathetic about environmental issues became aware—and alarmed—about the toxicity of coal-fired power plants; many of them became active in working to promote the cause of shuttering these facilities.
So who’s right here? I’ll hope for some good comments on this.
(photo: the logo on my favorite duffle bag)
I take it that John Passacantando never takes travels in an airplane, drives a car, accepts goods transported by ship or trucking, receives government services provided from taxes levied on fossil fuel companies ?
If so then John Passacantando would appear to be a hypocrite. The coal industry certainly has problems with emissions. Yet coal still generates a significant proportion of the world’s energy.
The most viable immediate replacement for coal is natural gas. Purists like John Passacantando are fanatics. Their internecine battles with less extreme environmentalists, are more counter-productive than the actions of old fashioned reactionaries.
The environmentalist movement should be a broad cooperative of progressive concepts, not a narrow fanatical ideology where self proclaimed thought police like John Passacantando hunt down “heretics” with burning torches and pitchforks.
I agree with a great deal of what you write here, but it’s clearly a challenge when an organization we count on for its objectivity is accepting money from one of the groups it’s supposed to be evaluating critically.
In a related story, we have public universities taking contribution for the Koch brothers, a deal in which there is a clear quid pro quo. That’s just nauseating.
Craig,
I disagree ! I don’t see anything wrong with a University accepting money from anyone as long as it’s clearly reflected and published.
However much you dislike the David and Charles Koch they are as entitled as you to commission research and donate freely.
It might surprise you to learn that David and Charles Koch are also substantial contributors (with no strings attached ) to;
NAACP
United Negro College Fund
David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
Criminal Justice Reform organizations
Prisoners Aid
Legal Aid for the Disadvantaged
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
The Nature Conservancy
At Risk Youth.
Coalition for Public Safety
Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)
Center for American Progress (CAP)
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
American Museum of Natural History
The Koch brothers also support gay rights, same sex marriage, Roe V Wade (pro-choice)and many other libertarian or leftist causes. David and Charles Koch also financially support some environmental causes in addition to the usual philanthropic donations to arts and culture.
Even President Obama has expressed his appreciation of the support received for some of his initiatives and policies.
Its true that the Kochs have also contributed and funded controversial scientists and research that opposes or questions some aspects of Climate Change/ Global Warming claims.
But so what ? These guys are entitled to their view and opinions.Spending money on alternate scientific research may be a waste, but it’s their money ! After all free speech means the right to sponsor and voice opinions of dissent. The principle of free speech applies to everyone, even billionaires and paupers.
If you believe in free speech, it’s not important to support the right for people you agree with to speak freely, it’s far more important that you support those you vehemently oppose to speak freely.
I find the attitude of organizations such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees more deplorable When the Union learned of the Koch Brother had been supporting the United Negro College Fund for many years and in 2014 donated $25 million, the Union immediately protested by ending its annual $50,000 donation to UNCF.
I don’t see any harm in on going debate, (no matter how bizarre some claims) I am far more frightened by suppression and doctrinaire acceptance.
Slightly of topic, but very rich and successful men are often far more multi-dimensional, complex and hold many contradictory opinions than their public stereotype suggests.