Sierra Club

The Sierra Club does both good and bad. They are against coal but they are among those who fear radiation irrationally.

6 Comments

  • January 30, 2011 - 2:15 am | Permalink

    The Sierra Club also has a rather disturbing blind spot about the hazards of exploration, extraction and transportation of natural gas. Their official position is that the fuel is a bridge to a utopian future powered only by wind, solar and geothermal. That position is also held by the natural gas industry (aka, the oil/gas industry). The difference is that the oil industry has little doubt that the bridge is supposed to last a long time and provide them with hundreds of billions of dollars in excess profits that they would not get if nuclear energy was allowed to compete on any kind of a level playing field.

    Some of the Sierra Club chapters are quite opposed to the position of the national organization and publicly challenge that position. What they do not seem to understand is that the leaders of the national groups who talk about being in favor of the environment are actually well paid members of the established economic order that enjoys the prosperity that selling oil and natural gas to an addicted public can bring to those who do the selling.

    Here is a link to an interesting blog published by the current Sierra Club Executive Director. The thread following that blog entry illustrates some of my points above.

    http://sierraclub.typepad.com/michaelbrune/2010/10/why-dick-cheney-sticks-to-bottled-water.html

  • Jack
    March 19, 2011 - 11:33 pm | Permalink

    re: “if nuclear energy was allowed to compete on any kind of a level playing field”
    IF it were to compete, it would not survive the market. Wall Street is not interested in the nuclear relapse because “The failure of the US nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history” (J. Cook (1985). Nuclear Follies. Forbes, 11th Feb, 1985.), which is why the U.S. industry is now demanding 100% tax-payer backed loan guarantees.
    Oh, and Price-Anderson. The industry would have never had the opportunity to flub management so thoroughly, and would never be rising like the zombie it is now if its liability were not strictly limited by this landmark legislation.

    • March 20, 2011 - 12:24 am | Permalink

      What would motivate you to call it a relapse?

    • Ruck
      April 11, 2011 - 8:47 pm | Permalink

      Yes, Wall Street is ever so wise and it’s investment prowess is unmatched in the energy sector (ENRON). Bernie Madoff didn’t like nuclear, so neither should you! This line of reasoning is as bankrupt as the last Credit Swap that can’t go wrong.

      Wall Street won’t invest because anti-nukes abused the system so effectively that regulators overreacted and placed a stranglehold on the nuclear enterprise that would have detroyed a lesser industry. It’s precisely because nuclear is THAT economic it could survive the onslaught unleashed by a manipulated public with a mob mentality.

      Those guarantees are just part of the Federal Government’s $12 Trillion dollar portfolio designed to spur needed infrastructure projects that Wall Street won’t swing on its own (not enough short term gain to be had). They only apply to the first handful of reactors anyhow. Since the Federal Government (NRC) is directly responsible (anti nukes indirectly) for the long contruction timelines imposed on nuclear plants, it’s only fair they should offset this prejudice with a guarantee of construction completion- sound fair? I’m sure if windmills were so mired in regulatory ratcheting, they would take advantage just the same. Only they don’t have to, their subsidies already rob the treasury blind as it is.

    • Twominds
      June 17, 2012 - 1:31 pm | Permalink

      IF the nuclear industry can’t compete on a level playing field, then that will become clear. There’s no reason NOT to level the playing field, is there?

  • George Carty
    May 13, 2012 - 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Wasn’t it natural gas money that made the Sierra Club into a serious force to be reckoned with in the first place? (Back in the pre-nuclear era when the competition came from hydroelectric dams…)

  • Leave a Reply

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

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>