Green New Deal vs Green New Deal part 3: Sunrise Movement and tax vs cap and trade

As Democratic Congresscritter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has some magic powers, or the help of plagiarization of ideas, aided and abetted by the Sunrise Movement, to launch a Green New Deal without discussing the Green Party, I did an initial piece on it. I then did a follow-up, and became more curious about the Sunrise Movement as I did so. That leads to the first part of the second line of the header.

WHAT'S UP WITH THE SUNRISE MOVEMENT?

The biggest of "allies," or actually a progenitor, is the Sunrise Movement. Its homepage looks even whiter than the Green Party, despite its acknowledgement that much of climate change will hit poor of all ethnicities and especially minorities. The ambitious goals it lists, per the New Yorker, seem unobtainable without major funding for it. Major funding. And a carbon tax would help until much of this was in place. But ... like AOC, so far,  heavy on aspiration, light on perspiration.

I am also distrustful of any organization which won't list its leadership on its website. Some of the founders claim inspiration from the Occupy movement, or Black Lives Matters. In both cases, we see what has happened with actual or alleged lack of leadership. The original Occupy at Zucotti Park had leadership, despite denials; I've written about that before. Black Lives Matter truly appears to be more leaderless, and by 2020, will probably have dissipated much of its original energy. (In fact, co-founder Evan Weber was part of Occupy. At least he admits it had leadership problems. The real truth is Occupy had leaders who tried to get others to believe the leaderlessness myth. It eventually sold out to Wall Street; remember that, when you see $20 T-shirts; a Sunrise Occupy-style debit card could be next. Occupy also had a 1 percenter problem.

Also, none of the Sunrise Movement have acknowledged ripping off the Green Party, or even really acknowledged its existence. Related big question: If there's a ConservaDem in a general election, after a failed primarying attempt, will it endorse Greens when they're running? SPUSAers or whomever, if Greens aren't available in a particular district?

I sent a second direct question to Sunrise after first indirectly tagging after starting work on this piece. We'll see what, if any, response I get. Don't believe me? Twitter link and screengrab. Account started in 2013. Wikipedia information? Organization started in 2017.

Reality, per Wikipedia? It's a youth front of Sierra Club that sat around and did nothing, it seems, for four years. And, people who have been long-term readers know what I think of Sierra in particular and Gang Green environmental groups in general. And, that explains why it hasn't credited the Green Party. And, explains why it won't identify its leadership more.

And more research. Stephen O'Hanlon's Downingtown is semi-ritzy. The man I presume is his dad would appear to have a ritzy yet small-scale law practice. In other words, the place where white upper-middle-class environmentalists live, a complaint that has been leveled for decades, and not just at environmentalists, but Green movements, including the Green Party in its German homeland.

And, at least one claim, per Sunrise's Twitter feed? To eliminate all greenhouse gases by 2030? Since cow farts are greenhouse gases, unless Sunrise makes the entire country vegetarian, that simply ain't happening. (This gets back to AOC's cow-fart comments, then getting busted eating a hamburger with her chief of staff. The chief of staff who has his pay set low enough to dodge financial disclosure rulings.)

But, per the tweet embedded below, that is exactly the claim.

NEW: @SenBooker is backing the #GreenNewDeal.

That means:

✅ Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
✅ Investing in communities on the frontlines of poverty & pollution
✅ Guaranteeing a good job to anyone ready to make this happen pic.twitter.com/d5auk7FGFq

— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) December 14, 2018

So, Sunrise IS hypocritical. And AOC is fence-straddling if she believes you just need to cut back on meat eating, not eliminate it. Or, if she believes what Sunrise does, she's a fellow hypocrite.

And, the intellectual equivalent of hypocrisy is Millennial types not doing their own research on this background. Or believing that only two political parties exist, especially on issues like this.

Related? This long read that claims the whole GND is a "financialization of nature." Here's an about on who's behind that. They're leftists, not liberals. Leftist enough to mock Democracy Now. And, this group may be right. Several of the board of "We Don't Have Time" have backgrounds in Sweden's FIRE, entrepreneur or tech worlds. So, in case you thought it was a "big deal," actually, it's a social media focused climate-change call-out co-op. That's not bad, but it's not necessarily all that. And, it's in part slacktivism.

In turn, this leads to the kids who confronted Sen. Feinstein about six weeks ago. Maybe they WERE manipulated to some degree. By tech-neoliberals who believe salvific technologism — the idea that the tech world cavalry will always ride over the hill to rescue us — is going to stop global warming.


CARBON TAX vs CAP-AND-TRADE

And, the "versus" needs to be there, contra a High Country News story recently with a relatively shoddy section near the end.

I jointly Tweeted HCN, Nives Dolšak — one half of a husband-and-wife set of environmental professors, and story author Kate Schimel in a thread of three tweets about this:

“The word ‘tax’ is probably the most reviled word,” said Hal Harvey, CEO of the firm Energy Innovation, which helps design renewable energy policies around the globe. …
 Dolšak tends to agree: She hypothesized that even cap-and-trade, which often amounts to the same thing as a carbon tax, might have passed in the state, given that it sidesteps the word tax and directly limits emissions.

That second graf, with the first graf as introduction, is "problematic" to say the least.

 The first and main Tweet:

.@highcountrynews .@NivesDolsak Sorry, but #capandtrade does NOT "amount to the same thing" as #carbontax. As story does not have direct quote, I don't know if this is Ms. Dolsak's sentiment or is editorializing by .@KateSchimel https://t.co/GT0AXsCIjt

— ATrealDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) March 1, 2019

I followed that with one about counter-evidence:

#Thread  Further proof #capandtrade does not amount to the same thing as a #carbontax is that 9 states have a cap and trade consortium. https://t.co/2brTMdXbz6

— ATrealDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) March 1, 2019

I could have added that, in 2009, the House approved a cap-and-trade bill, but never even considered a carbon tax based bill.

I could ALSO have added that a carbon tax allows a carbon tariff to be levied on imports.

That said, to the third tweet:

IMO, it comes close to being part of problem to see #capandtrade the same as  #carbontax. It makes it look like addressing the realities of #climatechange cld be painless & easy, when that is most likely not true. It also comes off as the free market can solve this, which I doubt

— ATrealDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) March 1, 2019

And I believe that as well.

Neither the mag, nor Dolšak, nor Schimel, has responded. Again, things like this are why my level of love for HCN has declined semi-steadily over the years.

That said, There is good comment here from Dolšak’s husband and fellow environmental studies professor, Aseem Prakash.

“The mainstream environmental groups are less willing to hear from the periphery,” he said. They focus on consolidating a liberal base, he said, to their detriment. Many groups, including the Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy, did not back an earlier carbon tax that was designed to appeal to more conservative voters. That, Prakash said, “was myopic.” 

And, it ties this directly back to the first half of the piece.

Oh, expect more of stuff like this from me. I already feel a Part 4 coming on.

And, I don't like that none of the three principals here have responded, any more than not liking Sunrise not responding.

Update, Jan. 23, 2020: HCN is at it again, now offering a he-said, she-said piece claiming carbon offsets work, but wondering if they might be an excuse for big companies.

No, they're more than that. They're like a modern version of indulgences for environmentalists.

AOC: Real criticism vs eyeballs and "gotcha"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has had the wingnuts hammering her (probably many of the single male wingnuts have been drooling in lust under the guise of hammering her) ever since she won her election. Actually, to a degree, ever since she knocked off Joe Crowley in her primary.

But, not just them.

Green Party and Green-leaner folks have been skeptical of her version of a Green New Deal. This person here has been not once, but twice. (He's also tagged Sunrise Movement on Twitter as well as mentioning them by name without tagging, asking what the hell it was actually doing for the first four years after joining Twitter in 2013, and gotten no response.)

I sent a second direct statement to them after starting work on this piece. We'll see what, if any, response I get. Don't believe me? Twitter link and screengrab. Account started in 2013. Wikipedia information? Organization started in 2017.

Reality, per Wikipedia? It's a youth front of Sierra Club that sat around and did nothing, it seems, for four years. And, people who have been long-term readers know what I think of Sierra in particular and Gang Green environmental groups in general.

Other criticisms of AOC — are they real on the substance? Are they more "eyeballs" issues, as in bad optics, and legitimately bad optics, but less of substance? Or are they "gotcha"?

Probably a mix of all of the above.

Let's dive in.

No, first, contra the various gotchas, let's give her a straight-up kudo. A number of scholars and academics, like this one in the New York Times, cite very favorably her questioning in the Michael Cohen hearing.

NOW, let's dive in.

One, like her now living in a non-working class DC neighborhood? And, not being quite as poor as some might think, with $20-$50K in savings, as well as any amount of officially designated retirement savings being listed in official finance filings?

— Half eyeballs, half gotcha.

The NY Post claims she doesn't live at her alleged district home address. If true, per the story, that she had also originally planned to run in District 15, not 14, this explains why she won that district's primary as a write-in for the Reform Party. It also partially explains why she rejected that.

— Two-thirds eyeballs, one-third gotcha. The "eyeballs" ties in with my deconstructing her myth of being working class. Still a small amount of "gotcha." It IS the New York Post, after all.

At the same time, that Post piece is loaded with potshots. AOC could not have started an editorial office eight months ago after defeating Crowley in the primary because she was NOT a Congresscritter and would not be for 7.5 more months.

— Total gotcha on that. It IS the New York Post, after all.

Some of this may be spitballing and sour grapes by wingers. Some of it "is," not "may be." And, lord knows the Daily Mail just likes to engage in celebrity monkey-wrenching for clickbait. Nonetheless, per Ike's somewhat hypocritical comments about Tricky Dick, she surely knows that she needs to be cleaner than a hound's tooth. And, I'm not a winger. I'm not saying her legend is totally untrue. I am saying it's thinner than she has spun it, and that missteps unravel yet more threads.

On her new digs, no, she doesn't have to slum it. But, she maybe could have found a place with better optics? Ditto on shopping at Whole Paycheck in the middle of the Amazon dust-up.

In other words, I wouldn't make too big a deal out of it. BUT, I wouldn't dismiss it, either?

And, some issues, like her pre-election retreat on BDS, or throwing fellow freshman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, halfway under the bus on Israel-Palestine issues? NOT appearance issues, but political choices.

— Half REAL, half eyeballs. Yes, it's tough as a freshman to resist the hordes. But, she's caved twice, and counting, on Israel-Palestine issues.

Her Green New Deal, and all its issues, vs. my links above? And, my questions about the Sunrise Movement? It's complicated because all three POVs are at work. Tentatively?

— Forty percent REAL, 30 percent optics, 30 percent gotcha.

OTOH, eating a hamburger with her chief of staff (and AOC never claims it's a veggie burger) means that maybe her talking about cow farts isn't perfect. On a hypocrisy scale? On a 1-10? Rates a 2, maybe a 3. No more. First, wingnuts (and others), she just said we need to stop eating beef "breakfast, lunch and dinner." She never mentioned going vegetarian. So, even my 3 might be too high.

— Half eyeballs, half gotcha

Sorry, but gonna update that one per Part 3 of my Green New Deal vs Green New Deal. Hypocrisy rates a 4, maybe a 5, rather than a 3. And the scorecard?

— One third real, one third eyeballs, one third gotcha.

That said, that's the chief of staff for whom AOC is possibly deliberately "underpaying" to skirt financial disclosure rules. And, said chief of staff is now under FEC investigation for allegedly skirting PAC donation rules, and this connected to both AOC and to Justice Democrats.

— As of the time of writing, I'll offer 55 percent REAL, 30 percent eyeballs, 15 percent gotcha.

Not paying off a tax default she owes the state of New York over her failed children's books publishing company? (No harm in the failure itself, and, seriously, a nice try.)

— 100 percent real. The debt is under $2,000 and she's had plenty of time to pay, whether up front or on a payment plan. Things like this are guaranteed to put you in the running for the Just.Another.Politician.™ label.

AOC hosting a "fun run" the Saturday after Earth Day and saying the $30 fee was to fight for the Green New Deal but it was actually a campaign contribution?

— 20 percent real, 30 percent eyeballs, 50 percent gotcha. Anybody paying thirty bucks for a fun run should know in a case like this what it's going toward. And, the "fight the Green New Deal," as that's her signature push, ditto on people knowing it. AND, it was there in fine print. So, this above all a New York Post gotcha. (And, contra some on Twitter, it's gotcha above all else. You know who you are.

On the third hand (Idries Shah time) I don't expect a freshman Congresscritter, whether her fame is more thrust upon her or more self-invented, to know about every environmental issue in the nation, and certainly not those in other states. I am sure she knows basic issues about fracking, not just in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, but also air, ground and water pollution, although her focus is on GHGs and "keep it in the ground." However, she certainly knows nothing about PFOS/PFOA contamination that in New Mexico, is forcing a dairy farmer to eradicate his entire herd. None of this is to make light of anybody's environmental health problems. It IS, though, to suggest "proper Congressional channels." Said Clovis farmer is talking to one of his state's two Senators. (That said, the issue of PFOS/PFOA contamination at other Air Force bases has been known as a growing problem for several years.)

And, is it impossible for urban Congresscritters to be concerned about environmental issues? I think not.

So, defend her, liberal websites. As much as you can. (And, if you justified similar restaurant behavior against wingnuts, own your hypocrisy.) At the same time, let's sort out what's what.

And, it could be said that, due to missteps coming out of the gate, she's kind of earned these critical eyeballs. And, will surely earn more.

Per her Wiki page, I'm waiting for her likely ungrounded claim to have Sephardi Jewish ancestry to be deconstructed. And, this isn't just on her. In New Mexico, many Hispanos claim to have Sephardi ancestry and its more likely that they're descended from Protestant Adventist converts of the late 19th century. And, as for a breast cancer mutation proving Sephardi Marranos in New Mexico? Uh, no, Jews haven't so often married within their religion as the story claims, among other things. Also, Smithsonian doesn't tell you that those families denied being Jewish, as NIH reports.  And the British Medical Journal notes the mutation arose more than once. There's just too much "looseness" to satisfy me here still. Beyond that, if the mutation goes back to before the start of the Common Era, it could have arisen in Herod's Idumeans or something. And, yeah, I'm going to go there — at times, it comes off like Oklahomans claiming to be one-eighth Cherokee. That's you, up in Massachusetts.

Seriously ... given that an estimated 3.5 million direct descendants of Marranos exist today? Scattered all over Latin America and beyond? I highly doubt her claims. And, I find it "interesting" that she made them between the election and starting office. She may sincerely believe what she said her family found. I'm skeptical.

— Until I hear more, I don't see a REAL here, but, allowing for the possibility of more turning up, I'll call this 90 percent eyeballs, 10 percent gotcha, to slightly tell on myself.

The Green New Deal vs The Green New Deal

Let's start this off by stipulating that the DSA roses' "Green New Deal" is a pale imitation of the Green Party's offering. Andrew Stewart also talks about the original Green New Deal at Counterpunch. Carl Beijer (who allegedly worked on two Nader campaigns) says, "but the Democrats are the first to talk about the global climate issue."

That may well be true.

At the same time, it's not "the Democrats," Carl; it's a small subsection of Democrats, not a party stance. And, per those links, we'll see how well that small segment does at avoiding being co-opted by national leadership.

Indeed, the face of the Roses, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has continued to move rightward since lauding John McCain and backing away from BDS-related issues, as this longform from Mint Press notes.

Mint Press focuses on the Green New Deal and how it is, at bottom, fauxgressive. It mentions things like entrepreneurialism and other neolib buzz words, and looks like it would be entirely open to a carbon cap-and-trade, not tax and tariff, as the primary government "tool." And, that is even before Speaker Pelosi guts it. The piece also notes the GND of the Roses is a plan to work on a plan much more than an actual plan.

OTOH, I would support Carl Beijer's idea of a more socialist Green New Deal than the Roses (or the US Green Party, I think he's right) have offered. OTTH (On the third hand) Beijer does a bit of shark-jumping for me when he claims that capitalism inexorably leads to fascism. There, he refuses to call himself a dialectical materialist, but does call himself a "historic materialist."

A difference that makes no diff, Carl. You're claiming to be a Commie, specifically of Marxist variety, not just a socialist. As I've said elsewhere, Marxism is bankrupt both scientifically and philosophically. Marx had basically no scientific data to back up his ideas (and economics was even less scientific then than today), and Hegelian dialectic is a bucket of warm shit within philosophical ideas. The Frankfurt school and other neo-Marxist ideas were better, but really, we need to shed these polarities, especially of Marxism vs fascism with nothing in between. We even, IMO, need to look beyond the lesser polarity of capitalism vs socialism (I mean socialism, not DSA or similar social democracy). Sadly, or worse than that — Beijer seems to be like others, whose general mindset I call out in that link — romancers of November 1917 Russia.

For New York Greens, Howie Hawkins gets that right when he notes that a real Green New Deal needs that, and adds that during World War II, with its analogies, FDR nationalized 25 percent of American industry. Speaking of, Stan Cox at Counterpunch notes that led to a massive new emission of carbon dioxide in his own call for a true Green New Deal to go beyond capitalism.

Andrew Stewart also remains skeptical of the AOC "wave election" and other things related to it.

Meanwhile, in "mainstream progressive" media, the likes of Emma Vigeland claims that John Cornyn supports a carbon tax (which she insinuates is in AOC's version of a Green New Deal). First, I found multiple examples from Cornyn's Twitter feed showing her wrong (and politely let her know). Second, per both Vox and Grist, it seems fairly clear that the nebulous GND proposed by AOC and allies doesn't have a carbon tax. Some of their think-tank allies are in outright opposition.

Per Grist, I don't see a massive expansion of renewables without a hammer of the carbon tax forcing it. Ending all onshore and offshore oil drilling on federal lands to try to force us out of internal combustion engines, or at least those without hybrid drives, won't do enough to #KeepItInTheGround in the US, let alone doing nothing about foreign oil. And, of course, that's where a carbon tariff (which the GND doesn't come close to mentioning) is part of the picture.

Finally, now that AOC has released her own Green New Deal document, it looks highly aspirational. No carbon tax or other sticks to go with carrots. No real estimate of costs. These are going to be questions that need to be answered, issues that need to be addressed. Carl Beijer notes this, in noting AOC's document does discuss "funding" with no talk about real costs. The Green Party has also weighed in, saying it has fossil fuel industry loopholes. Michael Grunwald has another critique. That is that the manifesto is a laundry list grab back. Agreed! Prioritization is important. For example, were I president? Climate change and national healthcare would be the top priorities. A step below that would be a minimum wage hike. Other things fall yet lower.

As for the cost? Contra a Reason claim of $7 trillion, this Stanford study goes much lower, without specific final numbers. Among other things, it says that reduced electric generation costs would offset some of the construction and installation costs. I'm going to say $3 trillion over a time period until 2040 rather than 2030, and scrapping some localization issues of the Stanford study. Still pricey? Yes, but not THAT pricey. At $150 billion/year, less than half of DoD's budget.

WHAT'S UP WITH THE SUNRISE MOVEMENT?

The biggest of "allies," or actually a progenitor, is the Sunrise Movement. Its homepage looks even whiter than the Green Party, despite its acknowledgement that much of climate change will hit poor of all ethnicities and especially minorities. The ambitious goals it lists, per the New Yorker, seem unobtainable without major funding for it. Major funding. And a carbon tax would help until much of this was in place. But ... like AOC, so far,  heavy on aspiration, light on perspiration.

If even more tax credits to renewables is a small part of the deal, fine. But, that alone won't lead to a ramp-up of the size needed to get us driving electric vehicles, as well as running our computers on renewable electricity. And, what about the Dick Cheney sneered-at "conservation"? What if we can't ramp up car batteries without massive environmental degradation? What if, in some ways, the world has peaked? I'm leery, from seeing things like a "smart grid" touted as a major part of the solution (overhauls of the current electric grid ARE needed, but the grid is already relatively smart as far as "switching") that we've got a dollop or three of salvific technologism running around here.

I am also distrustful of any organization which won't list its leadership on its website. Some of the founders claim inspiration from the Occupy movement, or Black Lives Matters. In both cases, we see what has happened with actual or alleged lack of leadership. The original Occupy at Zucotti Park had leadership, despite denials; I've written about that before. Black Lives Matter truly appears to be more leaderless, and by 2020, will probably have dissipated much of its original energy. (In fact, co-founder Evan Weber was part of Occupy. At least he admits it had leadership problems. The real truth is Occupy had leaders who tried to get others to believe the leaderlessness myth. It eventually sold out to Wall Street; remember that, when you see $20 T-shirts; a Sunrise Occupy-style debit card could be next. Occupy also had a 1 percenter problem.

Also, none of the Sunrise Movement have acknowledged ripping off the Green Party, or even really acknowledged its existence. Related big question: If there's a ConservaDem in a general election, after a failed primarying attempt, will it endorse Greens when they're running? SPUSAers or whomever, if Greens aren't available in a particular district?

I sent a second direct question to Sunrise after first indirectly tagging after starting work on this piece. We'll see what, if any, response I get. Don't believe me? Twitter link and screengrab. Account started in 2013. Wikipedia information? Organization started in 2017.

Reality, per Wikipedia? It's a youth front of Sierra Club that sat around and did nothing, it seems, for four years. And, people who have been long-term readers know what I think of Sierra in particular and Gang Green environmental groups in general. And, that explains why it hasn't credited the Green Party.

And more research. Stephen O'Hanlon's Downingtown is semi-ritzy. The man I presume is his dad would appear to have a ritzy yet small-scale law practice.

And, at least one claim, per its Twitter feed? To eliminate all greenhouse gases by 2030? Since cow farts are greenhouse gases, unless Sunrise makes the entire country vegetarian, that simply ain't happening.

But, per the tweet embedded below, that is exactly the claim.

NEW: @SenBooker is backing the #GreenNewDeal.

That means:

✅ Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
✅ Investing in communities on the frontlines of poverty & pollution
✅ Guaranteeing a good job to anyone ready to make this happen pic.twitter.com/d5auk7FGFq

— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) December 14, 2018

I also find it interesting that Sunrise Movement's Twitter account says it was started in September 2013 ... which is long before the Sunrise Movement was allegedly started. (Both the "@" and the actual name are Sunrise-related, as you can see in the embedded Tweet, so it's not like it originally started as something else.

Finally, do not cite Modern Monetary Theory as a magic wand to pay for all of this. (I'm not specifically referring to the Sunshine Movement here.) I consider that some left-liberals, and a few leftists, version of snake oil or voodoo economics. Unless you find a magic way to eliminate the bond market as well, it doesn't work that way. It's one of my biggest disagreements with Michael Hudson, for the amount of good he has to say otherwise on economics.

Finally, none of this distinction between the GREEN New Deal and the Green New Deal matters as much, arguably, as the fact that Speaker Pelosi and House Democratic leadership allies of hers gutted the powers and mandate of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. (Update, Feb. 7: Pelosi has left AOC off the committee.)

And, the chair of that committee, Kathy Castor, is now talking about how "woke" Dear Leader was on climate change in his 2009 stimulus bill. Since that bill fell short on stimulus help, let's be honest and note that while it did "something" green, the something it did was entirely neoliberal, markets focused. (Of course, per all of the above, the AOC GND has too much of that itself.)


Update, Feb. 22: The New Republic, of all places, not a leftist outfit, now asks if some Dems (not necessarily AOC) are deliberately trying to steal Greens' thunder.

I$ the U$ #environmental movement $adly a$tray?

Per the joking old college letter, I think my sentiments in the headline are pretty clear, at least in terms of the big "gang green" environmental organizations.

Smaller ones like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, or mid-sized ones like the Coalition for Biological Diversity, are generally OK, but Sierra Club and others?

They have their idea on another kind of green.

That's how they got the name Gang Green, by trading ardent environmentalism for Democratic Party access. That, in turn, brought them the possibility of more donors.

So, for the "gang green" environmental groups deciding at the start of the Clinton Administration that cozying up to Democrats for political "access" was more important than being firmer on stances. Then, we have the topper, several years ago, of Sierra Club selling the rights to its name, for branding and marketing, to Clorox. There were certainly a few questions about Clorox's environmental commitment, and a boatload of unquestionable facts on its low standards on labor issues. I blogged more here and here about how this exposed authoritarian tactics of Sierra's national board and then-CEO Carl Pope.

But, when a big, rich (yes, relatively) environmental group pays just $33K a year for copy editors for its magazine, with a job based in downtown San Francisco, we know which "green" is speaking. We also know how much neoliberal gang green environmentalists really care about labor rights.

That said, there's some question of how much they even care about environmental issues that don't float the boats of rich neoliberal donors. Sierra was touting natural gas as a "bridge fuel" well after the possible and actual problems of fracking became known, and even as wellhead gas leaks that might undermine its claim as a "bridge fuel" also became apparent.

Sierra's not alone; witness Audubon getting halfway in bed with a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, the hardrock mining company with a history of environmental problems. The Audubon story is similar to Sierra's for another reason. The national HQ saw dollar signs and overrode the will and desire of a local chapter. This time, instead of suspending the board, like Sierra, Audubon created a new entity to bypass the old one.

And, it's not just this.

Witness the proliferation of the made-in-China tchotchkes passed out by the "Gang Green" groups, combined with the wasteful amount of mail, snail mail, not email, sent for solicitation efforts.

If you think this isn't true, Sourcewatch sets us clear on the bottom line for Gang Green:

These are heavily-staffed, well-funded non-profit corporations each with budgets in the tens of millions of dollars a year, offices in Washington, DC and other major cities, highly paid executive directors, and a staff of lobbyists, analysts and marketers. Big Green environmental groups together raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year, most of it contributed by non-profit foundations and individual donors. Many of the Big Green groups accept funding from or partner with corporations, have representatives of major corporations on their boards of directors, and work with corporations through other organizations. 

There you go, in a nutshell.

This is why, again, I fear for how our government's celebration of the centennial of the National Park Service will turn out in 2016. I fear it will get the neoliberal corporatist treatment.

That said, maybe SUWA can protest at Arches, or CBD at Saguaro. We may be getting closer to that time.

Neoliberal environmentalism - big bucks and cheapness

Or, the greatest example to date of how Gang Green enviromentalism's top dog, the Sierra Club, shows how a jokingly self-referential moniker from the start of the Clinton Administration well earns its deeper meeting.

So, Chesapeake, one of the biggies in natural gas fracking, was a biggie in funding Sierra Club's "Beyond Coal" campaign, eh? And, former executive director Carl Pope was fine with sucking up to Sierra execs? (What, no Clorox branding campaign?) And, kept a lot of Chesapeake giving to Sierra secret.

Fortunately, new executive director Michael Brune has put the kibosh on such money, though there's no word if he'll also kill the Clorox branding. But, I wouldn't hold my breath.


As the story notes, Brune is only talking about this decision 18 months after it happened. Plus, he's claiming the decision was Sierra's alone while Chesapeake says it was mutual.

Maybe it was mutual because Chesapeake knows it's part of a giant Ponzi scheme. (Having previously lived at the edge of the Barnett Shale in Dallas-Fort Worth, I have little doubt this is true,at least to a degree, from what I know about shale gas.)


So, while Brune, who came to Sierra from Rainforest Action Network, may be step up on Pope, how much of a step up, and how co-opted he has been, remains to be seen.


That said, with all this money, Sierra Club, even before the recession, was cheap. I know that because I applied for a job copy editing "Sierra," the club's magazine, back in 2005 or so. And, they were offering $33,000 a year for a job located in San Francisco. Really.


Then came the Clorox branding fiasco, the suspension of the charter for the Florida chapter for protesting that and other things, and more. Before that application, IIRC, came Sierra being asked if the tschotschke backpack it was peddling came from China, and Pope telling members "trust us, it's ethically made," but not saying more.


Sierra's got a long ways to go. David Brower is surely turning over in his grave.

No recession for the rich, Sierra Club version

"Huh?" you may be saying at that headline.

Here's the explanation.

On a nonprofits job board, I saw that Sierra is advertising for its first-ever creative director.

Now, in case you're wondering what that job is ... a creative director is usually a position at medium-and-up advertising, marketing, PR, and "branding" firms. It's the person/position supposed to be an ideas generator of what new and artsy-fartsy will "sell" in terms of print ads (both text and graphics), radio and TV ads, web ads, etc.

So, it's NOT a position you'd find at an environmental agency.

Unless it's a "Gang Green" agency that is both seeking to "brand/rebrand" itself AND that now has the money to do so.

Which is where the "rich" come in.

Nonprofit donations, including from the upper middle class and the rich, took a big hit in The Great Recession. That's especially true in enviro groups, where the vast majority of recurring donors are upper middle class and above, Volvo-driving, latte-sipping, Mayer-lemon-lemonade-making white neoliberals. Sierra couldn't be creating a position like this unless it had bucks coming in again from folks like these.

Ergo, the recession is definitely over for upper middle class and above, Volvo-driving, latte-sipping, Mayer-lemon-lemonade-making white neoliberals. QED.

The Dark Side of the Internet — spamtivism as well as slacktivism

Pardon the neologism in the header. I'll jump right in to explaning it.

I think most readers know what slacktivism is. Sierra Club, ACLU or whomever, sends you an e-mail alert (or 12, especially if it's an enviro group — more on that below, too). It often has your "suggested" comment for your Member of Congress, EPA Administrator or whomever already written for you.

Ditto on the occasional suggestion to call your Member of Congress — your talking points are already written out in the e-mail alert.

Now, let's be honest.

How often do you edit that "suggested" text?

If you're like me, the answer is "rarely," at best.

And, per my previous blog post in this thread, you KNOW that Congressional staffers — or, speaking of environmental issues, from which I am most familiar with this — staff for EPA, U.S. Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, etc., quickly become familiar with the pre-written text and so quickly start ignoring copycat e-mails.

So, slacktivism strikes out. And, if you're honest, you probably know that, too.

But, IMO, slacktivism is only part of the problem.

The base problem is "spamtivism."

Because such e-mail alerts make slacktivism easy, they also make it easy for nonprofits to see how easily you follow through on such slacktivist actions.

Why do you think Sierra Club, etc, send you "slacktivism confirmation" emails? It's a bit of a psychological carrot. And, it's the perfect way to say:

Now that you've sent that email, can you click this new link and send us $20 while you're at it?

And that, my friends, is "spamtivism."

I mention Sierra because enviros in general and Gang Green groups in particular are BAD about this.

They were bad about this back in the days of paper mailings, in the process, with the mounds of paper generated, undercutting some of their environmental cred.

They're also good at manufacturing and recycling crises.

For instance, since the start of the year, I've gotten more than half a dozen activism emails about uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. Realistically, is that worry (albeit a serious one) any closer to reality than it was four months ago?

You know that answer too.

So, why?

Gang Green will probably say, if it says anything, that this is because it loses so many members of its groups every year.

Ex-members will respond that they quit because of the bombardment, and seeing through the bombardment.

Unfortunately, though not as much, I think smaller enviro groups are creeping further down the spamtivism path.

Sierr Club dos what TCEQ won't

It is hugely clear, from a story like this, that he Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has the resources to regulate petrochemical plants but simply refuses to do so. So, Rick perry, you're (once again) simply full of shit when you complain about federal interference, in this case the EPA taking over the permitting process.

Sierra Club, hoist by its own green building petard

HAH!

The Sierra Club does NOT have rooftop solar panels at its HQ and gets busted.

But, wait, that's not all.

A Sierra Club staffer, in a comment to the blog post linked above. then notes the building is rented.

But, wait, that's not all, you Gang Green employee shill.

OK, prod the landlord, then. Or do what the Natural Resources Defense Council, a slightly more enlightened Gang Greener, did:

NRDC, down in Southern California, moved into its own new Western Regional HQ in 2003 that has solar panels, water recapture, energy conservation, etc., all adding up to an LEED Platinum certification.

More on the NRDC facility here:

NRDC's new headquarters, however, uses 60 to 75 percent less energy than a conventional building of its size, gets 100 percent of its energy from carbon-free renewables, and consumes 60 percent less drinking water. As (NRDC senior scientist Robert) Watson estimated, "If all commercial buildings in the U.S. were as efficient as ours, the country would achieve 70 percent of its Kyoto Protocol obligation."

So, why won't Sierra either pressure its landlord, or else build its own HQ? Hell, it's got all that Clorox greenwash money. It's surely also saving money from suspending the Florida chapter's leadership for protesting over that.

So, Sierra Club? Put up, or STFU.

What Amnesty and Gang Green have in common

They both pass out crap tchotchke gimmes that are probably made in countries that undercut their mission.

Years ago, Sierra got in Dutch with many of its memberrs when queried about a backpack gimme for membership renewers when it wouldn't identify its country of origin and said, in essence, "trust us."

Amnesty? It sends a presumably made-in-China tchotchke pen every few months to try to solicit contributions. That said, I can't prove it's made in China because I can't find a single country of origin identifier on it, which is suspicious enough.

Green news from Denmark and LA

Could going really, really green — with federal tax policy and other things — really help U.S. employment as much as President Barack Obama claims? Tom Friedman says yes, while noting we can't afford not to do more of what Denmark is doing.

Meanwhile, the L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez has a rhetorical question for U2's The Edge: What is greener, building five eco-mansions, or not building them in the first place?

Sadly, Gang Green is ready to come the The Edge's rescue, too, as the local Sierra Club supports his "vision."

Obama OK with blasting mountains

In the latest sign, of many, that The One ain’t The One on environmentalism (Vote Green, you numbnuts!) the Obama Administration says it will continue to allow mountaintop removal coal mining.

And, while it claims it will regulate such mining more tightly than did the Bush Administration, it can’t even guarantee such regulations will actually reduce the number of mountaintop coal mines.

And, while Earthjustice say it cannot support Obama in this, it will support him in 2012 rather than the Green candidate. Count on it. Ditto for the rest of Gang Green and affiliates.

Proof of that last point? A hand-wringing, “oh, why won’t Obama do more,” post on Kos, the enemy and lifeblood-sucker of anything truly progressive, by Bruce Nilles and Mary Anne Hitt, director and deputy director, respectively, of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign.

Thank doorknobs and real environmentalism, that I long ago cancelled my Sierra Club membership so as not to pay the salaries of people like that.

Boo hoo for Gang Green enviros

First, another e-mail from the National Resources Defense Council, wanting money to help the polar bears that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar refuses to better protect.

I e-mailed back that not only is money a bit tight for me right now, I wanted to see Gang Greeners like the NRDC eat some crow first for their “access embrace” of Salazar when Obama nominated him.

Then, the Sierra Club wanted money to help the endangered Florida panther. I e-mailed back, asking if it would also protect the possibly-extinct independent Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, too.

Boone Pickens has hand out for handout

T. Boone Pickens, acting like a typical billionaire American businessman, wants Congressional stimulus money to fund converting diesel trucks to natural gas.

Total hog-troughing? A cool $28 bil, at $75K per semi.

Hey, Boone? Go to Carl Pope and the Sierra Club. Pope’s already got his head buried up your ass on this issue anyway.

Thursday news-wrap – non-Palin edition

Here’s a wrapup, with blog post links, of the main non-Palin news of the last day or so. This has been a busy, busy day beyond RNC-related news items.

1. The MMR vaccine does NOT cause autism.

2. The Sierra Club drinks T. Boone Pickens’ Kool-Aid.

3. The India nuke deal may get nuked.

4. Schadenfreude alert! Porcupines are killing the trees of Telluride’s über-rich.

5. Sen. Briggs & Stratton, Missouri’s Kit Bond, finally, though about half a decade too late, got some EPA comeuppance.

Sierra Club stupidity-sellout on Boone Pickens

For Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, I guess drinking the Kool-Aid Clorox this spring wasn’t enough.

Now, via e-mail, he’s officially signing off on T. Boone Pickens’ self-serving idea to take wind-generated electricity’s natural gas savings to use natural gas as a motor fuel.

Worse yet, in the e-mail, the alleged “action.sierraclub.org” hyperlink actually goes to a “pickensplan.com” URL as a mirror link.

So, here’s what I e-mailed back:

First, I AM a newspaper editor, and hell, no, I won't send myself a letter, or write a column about Boone Pickens' largely self-serving plan.

This is Sierra's stupidest thing since the Clorox “greenwash” debacle, which is why I'm not renewing my membership, a decision, as well as commentary on the Clorox greenwash, I have blogged.

Second, I don’t like that your alleged "action.sierraclub.org" hyperlink in your e-mail is actually a ghost link to a pickensplan.com webpage.

Third, other environmentalists and environmental bloggers better than me have pointed out the details of how Pickens' plan has a LARGE self-serving element.

Fourth, this is the man who financed the Swift Boating of John Kerry in 2004, then welshed on paying up on a challenge when people proved that the Swift Boating attack had demonstrable falsehoods in it.

Carl, back to my hyperlink.

I think your leadership gets worse all the time, and I won't renew my Sierra membership until Sierra's board of directors non-renews your contract.

Eff you, Carl Pope. AND the Sierra board of directors you rode into town on.

If you want to sound off to him, even though you didn’t get an e-mail from him, here you go.

Update:Oh, for the idiot commentors who think Carl Pope is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or, worse yet, that Boone Pickens is, here’s the High Country News lowdown on Pickens’ right wing suckupitis.

This HCN line is classic:

He's the Republican oil billionaire who recently saw the light on the need for alternative energy and has sponsored a flood of windmill-porn TV ads to make sure the rest of America gets the message.

Doesn’t get much clearer than that, now, does it?

Well, unfortunately, for King Carl Pope (nice back-pun, eh?) it’s still “clear as mud” as to Pickens’ ultimate angle on all this.

Sierra Club green jobs hypocrisy follow-up

Last night, I blogged about Sierra’s trumpeting its participation in the Green Jobs for American program, along with NRDC and the Steelworkers, but noted that, in the past, tchotchkes for membership renewals seem to not come from this country.

So I e-mailed, direct to Executive Director Carl Pope, asking if the gimme garden back offered on an envelope flier inside the latest issues of Sierra mag, came from inside the U.S. or not.

Per Sierra Club’s Director of Marketing Membership Johanna O’Kelly, that would be a big nugatory on their tchotchke backpacks creating green jobs in the U.S. of A. Via e-mail:

Our Green Jobs initiative revolves around jobs that are focused on providing eco-preferable products/services from energy and energy-saving devices to organic materials. Unfortunately, backpacks do not usually fall into that Green category since they have to meet certain basic criteria for consumers’ usage, such as water resistant, light weight, durable, etc.

Backpacks do relate well to our mission as we were formed as an outings
organizations with the thought that if you get someone outdoors, they are much more likely to help protect those places. Our bags are made overseas in one of several factories that have been inspected by a US auditing company of our choosing for meeting our workplace code of conduct standards. They are well made and last a long time and thus stay out of the waste stream longer as well.

So, let me unpack this big steaming pile of crapola, per the follow-up questions I e-mailed to O’Kelley.

1. Doesn’t fuel costs for shipping from China (unless Sierra discloses what country these gimme gifts come from, China is the empirically logical assumption) count as part of the green issue?

2. Doesn’t the higher pollution from Chinese factories, Chinese coal-fired electric plants, etc. count as part of the green issue?

3. In your second sentence, it sounds like you're saying, in essence, that American manufacturers can't make something that good, or at least, they can't make something that good at Chinese sweat equity wages. Well, just as people like Michael Klare note that U.S. military costs ought to be factored into the “true” cost of oil, shouldn't Chinese environmental degradation be factored into the "true" cost of Made in China?

4. If you want (to hand out) a tchotchke, why not hook the Sierra wagon to the carbon-offset star and plant 10 trees in the name of each member upon renewal?

And, that fourth comment was not meant as snark. I seriously mean that.

Sierra with your bags, WWF with your stuffed pandas and polar bears, and any other enviro groups passing out cheap made in China crap, STOP! Especially if you’re going to claim you’re trying to great more environmentally-based jobs in America.

In a follow-up e-mail, O’Kelley’s eyes may have opened:

On the fuel costs, you’re right I need to do that calculation again since it has been so long. … I think it is pretty fuel efficient but I need to probably figure this again. And we only have the factories do cut and sew — no mfg. And you are right about the US. mfg. There so few factories left. But again, as I mentioned before we do have these places inspected. You can go here for more info: http://www.fairlabor.org/all/code/index.html

And as for premiums, we test a myriad of things and we go with whatever produces the most membership sign-ups. We have not tried carbon offsets but have tried things such as compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) which unfortunately did not work well. Maybe we will give the carbon offset a try sometime although we find that most people want something tangible for themselves ... but maybe I’ll try it though. Thanks for the idea.

Sierra Club doesn’t really love Made in U.S.A. — hypocrisy alert 2

Boy, the Sierra Club is doing well on corporate bullshit this month.

Immediately below this post, I note Sierra’s hypocrisy about population control, also linked just to the right in the archives.

This month’s Sierra mag has another item of hypocrisy in the Sierra Club bulletin.

Sierra touts how it’s working for American jobs, about two-thirds of the way down the webpage:

What can fight global warming, slash energy costs, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and revitalize our economy? The Green Jobs for America campaign, launched in April by the Sierra Club with the United Steelworkers and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Focusing on 12 states, the campaign promotes private investment and government policies to expand renewable energy.

Really?

Hey, Executive Director Carl Pope.

Remember a few years ago when I, and thousands of other people, asked where a tchotchke Sierra Club backpack for renewing members was made? Your staff wouldn’t even tell us what country it came from period, let alone whether or not it was American-made. Instead, you said, in essence, “Trust us.”

That garden bag on the flier inside this month’s magazine, offered to basic members? Is it made in the U.S.? I highly doubt it. You certainly make no claim to that end on the flier.

If you’re wondering the same thing shoot Carl an e-mail and ask him.

Sierra Club LOVES population control — outside of U.S.; big hypocrisy alert

For several years, ending a couple of years ago, Sierra Club annual board elections were sharply contested in part based on whether or not the club should take an official stance on population control in the United States.

Practically, of course, that meant taking, or not taking, an official stance on illegal aliens and illegal immigration, and what to do about that.

Well, Executive Director Carl Pope, ironically or hypocritically, himself a former political director for Zero Population Growth (see his Wiki bio), got the board he wanted, got Sierra governance changed, and kept population growth worriers from being easily nominated to run for board positions.

Imagine my surprise when I got my July/August issue of Sierra magazine (I’m going to keep the subscription until my Sierra Club membership officially expires, had an article touting birth control in Ethiopia.

The subhead is even explicit: “Ethiopia, the cradle of humanity, faces up to family planning.”

So, Carl Pope, why is it OK to talk about family planning there, in your mag, but not about population issues here on your board?

If you’re wondering the same thing, shoot Carl an e-mail.

Sierra goes anti-enviro AGAIN!

Apparently Carl Pope doesn’t understand the word “environmentalism.” The Sierra Club was one of five major environmental organizations to not only sign off on, but help negotiate the environmental metrics of, the sale, for commercial development, of parts of California’s Tejon Ranch.

And, I don’t care if non-comment “handshake” agreements, albeit without contracts, have been common in the past. The original practice, even without a contract, is a crock. It’s unprofessional, in my opinion, for a wildlife biologist, unless he or she wants to be on the take, to sign off on such a deal in advance.

Ditto for the environmental organizations lining this up.

The hypocrisy is squared by the gag order also extending to how much money each of the scientists was paid.

It would be the equivalent of me, as a newspaper editor, agreeing in advance of the first words of an interview to let someone go off the record.

Joining Sierra in the Green Hall of Shame?

First, shock me that Sierra signed off on this. Carl Pope probably thought he could use some Sierra-branded Clorox to bleach away bad PR.

I’ve blogged my displeasure, including my refusal to renew my Sierra membership, here, here and here.

Shock me also that Natural Resources Defense Council was one of the five groups. After getting snookered here in Texas by William O’Reilly and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts on the TXU buyout, and giving KKR priceless greenwash, it makes me wonder about any corporate dealings NRDC has too.

The third biggie? Audubon California.

As for Audubon, the last time I got an offer to join it, I e-mailed back, to the appropriate department, asking if its free tschotschke du jour was made in China or not. (WWF burned me on that one a few years back.)

No answer from Audubon means no membership from me.

More people who are knowledgeable are going to stop participating in major environmental organizations and get more active in smaller, more pristine ones.