Sierra Club accepted $25 Million from the Natural Gas Industry

by Bryan Walsh, TIME
Mainstream environmental groups have struggled to find the right line on shale natural gas and the hydraulic fracturing or fracking process. Gas has a much smaller carbon footprint than coal—according to most scientists—and produces far fewer air pollutants. That was enough for many major green groups to give support to gas as a “bridge fuel” to a cleaner energy future—the next best domestic alternative to coal as an electricity source while alternatives like wind and solar scaled up. But for grassroots members of those groups—especially in parts of the country where fracking was already underway—the risk of local pollution wasn’t worth the national and global climate benefits of greater gas consumption, especially as media and scientific attention on the potential threats to water supplies grew.  Read article

10 thoughts on “Sierra Club accepted $25 Million from the Natural Gas Industry

  1. Most NGO’s for Green and everything between take money from Government and Industry in order to kick these latter in the shins (or higher). Even worse, there are huge money sources for reactionary Green and lefty orgs. from various groups who receive most of their money from the same few sources (who appear to want to bring down the West until it conforms to some politically correct version of social political economic new reality. Haven’t we been down that road already?

  2. The new head of the Sierra Club US was with Greenpeace which this article failed to mention.

    The ENGOs here were the gofers that helped to pass the Green Energy Act and covered for the renewable energy developers.

  3. We all know the likes of Sierra Club are whores when it comes to accepting “green” backs, that is. OK so now EPA wants to crack down on fracking, but wind turbines need gas backup or no electricity and Suzuki says gas particles are so small they are more damaging to the lungs then larger pollutant particles from coal. Hello???? Silly green people are in energy companies’ pockets who really want lots of useless turbines to be backed up by gas creating another revenue stream. And the biggest (or stupidest) shortsighted one is the landowner presenting himself like a lamb to be fleeced, of his land that is.

    Councillors show the Premier your backsides!

  4. We all used to think of nice clean natural gas. Likely the least environmentally damaging’ hydrocarbon production and use there is. Yes they are good at keeping the sulfur and benzene problems quiet.
    The US natural gas industry has gone through some changes that are very similar to the Green Energy Act in Ontario. It is worth having a look to see the similarities.

    The Endocrine Disruption Exchange
    http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.introduction.php

    As natural gas production rapidly increases across the U.S., its associated pollution has reached the stage where it is contaminating essential life support systems – water, air, and soil – and causing harm to the health of humans, wildlife, domestic animals, and vegetation. This project was designed to explore the health effects of products and chemicals used in drilling, fracturing (frac’ing, or stimulation), recovery and delivery of natural gas. It provides a glimpse at the pattern(s) of possible health hazards posed by the chemicals being used. There are hundreds of products in current use, the components of which are, in many cases, unavailable for public scrutiny and for which we have information only on a small percentage.

    All meaningful environmental oversight and regulation of the natural gas production was removed by the executive branch and Congress in the 2005 Federal Energy Appropriations Bill. Without restraints from the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, and CERCLA, the gas industry is steamrolling over vast land segments in the West. Exploitation is so rapid that in less than 6 months in one county, 10 new well pads were built on the banks of the Colorado River, the source of agricultural and drinking water for 25 million people downstream. Spacing has dropped from one well pad per 240 acres to one per 10 acres. From the air it appears as a spreading, cancer-like network of dirt roads over vast acreage, contributing to desertification.

    Sound Familiar?

  5. As far as I can tell (with a little help from Barbara) the Sierra Club name can be broken down into 4 parts.

    Sierra Club US – The main organization in the US. They have done and are doing some good honest environmentally work. Nothing is perfect.

    Sierra Club US local chapters – They receive some direction from the US main organization but also operate independently

    Sierra Club US – The main organization in the US which occasionally operates in Canada

    Sierra Club Canada – Stole the name from the US organization and has nothing to do with the US organization.

    If it should happen some day that Ontario tries to put wind turbines in the Great Lakes you may find the Sierra Club US fighting against that.

    • The US Sierra Cub today is a far different organization than it used to be. Most ENGOs today have been taken over by eco-nuts who drove out those who really did care about environmental issues and not about advancing their own political agendas.
      The Sierra Club US is a big backer of IWTs and the same can be said about Sierra Club Canada.

    • Greenpeace played a big role in the passage of Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Now a Greepeace fellow is running the US Sierra Club.Not wise to support this organization.

  6. So many people think that we should all be fighting the oil companies by buying into Industrial Wind. Suncor, Enbridge etc. … Industrial Wind is supporting these companies and stepping all over farmland. A wind company in no way can lose by having a land lease.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *