3 ms·

It makes sense why some of these organizations operate in this way when you consider they were individually established to serve particular environmental intere

• solardev 3y ago
  Despite this, both groups do support renewables, at least nationally, with caveats: https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100 https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100 https://www.audubon.org/news/wind-power-and-birds https://www.audubon.org/news/wind-power-and-birds
  • acdha 3y ago
    This is true-ish but as someone who gets donation requests from both of them I’ve literally never once heard either group mention it. I think OP’s point is correct: these groups originated from relatively affluent communities and nobody wants to say “if you really treasure the sierras, don’t drive there - even in an EV”.
    • solardev 3y ago
      I think the OP's point definitely stands -- don't disagree at all! Sorry, I was trying to illustrate that the chapters and national do have different priorities that sometimes conflict (or at least cause nuance). It's not a simple binary thing. Different chapters can disagree with each other. National can disagree with itself. I've volunteered with the Sierra Club both locally in different areas and on some national/regional climate programs. I've also sat in on local Audubon meetings when they've looked at and discussed the details of local wind projects to decide if they should support or oppose it, balancing local wildlife needs with national climate priorities. And often energy companies will hold environmental review meetings for the public, where these groups and others would send representatives. (Was an environmental science and journalism student in college, and our area had a looooot of meetings about land use conflicts, being both full of endangered species and ripe for renewables development). My underlying point is that these are inherently nuanced issues with local, regional, and national (and of course global) perspectives. The chapters and national groups understand that, and they are of course also concerned about climate change. They're not blind to these basic facts, but it's not as simple as simply developing over all our protected lands to build new energy projects if that means killing (too) many of the species they were trying to protect to begin with. It's also not as simple as simply rejecting renewables in favor of, say, using less energy. It's a hard problem all around, and balanced solutions require an understanding of all the costs and benefits involved, not unthinking adherence to any dogma. Even the elitism thing... yes, it's very true, especially historically. But there is a push in these groups (facing both internal and external pressures) to diversify both in ethnicity/culture and economic class so that conservation isn't just something for rich white hermits. Even Muir doesn't quite have the same worshipful status he once did. More diversity also means that environmental justice becomes a more significant factor -- where to site nuclear projects, for example, or whether rich NIMBYs displace poor NIMBYs because they are better able to put up legal hurdles and marketing campaigns. And as outdoor rec becomes more popular, accessibility vs preservation is an ongoing issue (but that's a while other can of worms). I think there will always be people who want to make nature an exclusive club for a small group of rich white hikers, and the only remedy to that is more diverse involvement in these groups (or other groups like Latino Outdoors). The chapter model actually makes that more possible because you're not directly tackling an old white board at the national level, but engaging with neighbors on shared issues.
• eru 3y ago
  > In fact, the availability of cheap fossil fuels is what allowed average Americans to to visit the preserved wildlands in the post war period. That continues to this day, at least until we're all driving electric. Perhaps for a bit longer: the US is big [citation needed] and electric planes are a lot harder than electric cars. > The challenges facing the world with climate change subsume all of these narrow environmental challenges. The climate problem and its solutions are planetary and civilizational in scale, not limited to a particular narrow environmental concern, no matter how valid that concern is. Your point might be valid, but 'subsume' is rather the wrong word. The global climate doesn't particularly care if one factory in one town dumps heavy metals in the ground water over there. Worries about the climate might well _dwarf_ local worries, but they don't _subsume_ them.
  • danans 3y ago
    > Worries about the climate might well _dwarf_ local worries, but they don't _subsume_ them. In many ways they do subsume them. For example, an impactful strategy to combating climate change is increasing density of urban areas by upzoning. This reduces vehicle miles driven and energy consumed for transportation and heating/cooling. But it also reduces demand for housing in wildland areas, subsuming that environmental fight. Similarly, reducing fossil fuel extraction by replacing that energy with carbon-free sources subsumes the problem of limiting the destruction of rivers from coal mining, and the mitigating the devastation caused by offshore oil leaks.
    • eru 3y ago
      Yes, some are subsumed. I was merely arguing against the universality of 'subsume all of these'.
      • danans 3y ago
        You're right, I should have said "subsume many or most of these". That said, quenching the thirst for energy is very central to the history of environmental destruction, from deforestation caused by pre-industrial societies through to mountaintop removal for coal.
• whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  Much of the article is about this, about how environmental protection has historically required conservation and resisting development, but now environmental protection requires developing clean energy (and urban housing) as quickly as possible