Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The SierraClub.org Perspective

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 7, 2012, 4:55 p.m. EST by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Well, I suppose it runs completely contrary to much of OWS principles - but this is the effort underway courtesy of the Sierra Club. Just thought I would pass it along. From an environmental perspective the choice seems fairly clear.

And yes, I am well aware there are a great many other issues beyond the environment.

In ten years that may no longer be the case - we'll see.

File it under the for what its worth department.


From the clean energy economy to job-creating fuel-efficiency standards to climate change to clean air and water, this year's elections will have profound implications for the way our country safeguards the health of our communities and our environment.

Our leaders will face big responsibilities and big challenges. And we, the voters, face the responsibility of choosing who we want to take on those challenges.

In Mitt Romney's convention speech, he openly mocked the science and impact of climate disruption. We don't think there's anything remotely funny about droughts and extreme weather... or about Romney's disastrous energy plan.

And when President Obama accepted his party's nomination to serve another term, he did so as the president who signed one of the most important lands-protection bills in decades, who has enacted the strongest protections ever against toxic mercury, and who implemented new fuel-efficiency standards that will dramatically reduce carbon pollution.





Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by shooz (18066) 1 year ago

The nerve of those environmentally partisan people at the sierraclub.

How dare they not bitch constantly about some vague notion of a duopoly and then do nothing at all.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

is this post shadow banned?

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

The economy is always a passing thing. It has its ups and downs. The environment on the other hand is not. Once its gone, its gone forever.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well - I guess there is that . . . .

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are a scumbag.

  • Since his efforts to take over the board of directors of the Sierra Club with anti-immigration activists failed in 2004,

non story.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I love that kind of talk. It is so.....? So.......? So, Zen-like.

Almost half of the Sierra Club members voted for Zuckerman. So only half of the people in the club are racist, bigoted, xenophobes?


[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

In 1998, SUSPS spearheaded a ballot proposition committing the Sierra Club to supporting immigration restrictions. Club members voted it down, 60% to 40%.

YOu are looking at a concerted and long term effort to absolutely destroy the Sierra Club and turn it into one more conservative mouth piece. Had it been successful then in short order, it would no doubt have begun advocating mountain top removal for the coal industry.

And you are just bright enough to pick up on it - no doubt just because the effort was unsuccessful.

too bad, huh.

Fortunately the organization beat back the attempt.

As for Zenlike - I've used it all up for today. YOu got the dog. Careful.

I just might bite.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

40 % of the Sierra Club members voted anti-immigrant. That speaks volumes about the mentality of people that join that org and others like it. Earth First? People come second, the dirt is first. PETA, " a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy". They are hate groups.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I have no knowledge regarding the demographic makeup of the Sierra Club or the political views prevalent with each - not now, not 14 years ago.

For all I know a campaign of targeted advertising produced the results you refer to - and may represent a one time statistical anomaly not to be repeated any time soon.

you just dont' like them because they aren't useful to mittens and lyin ryan.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Get some knowledge.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I've got some - of such profound epiphanous revelatory nature that I put it on a tee shirt . . .

  • Global Warming

  • It's right out in the parking lot

  • The Repelican party is DONE


want more?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You were seeking knowledge, not inspiration. Divine intervention is not required, just an open mind and a little work.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If global warming was the only problem facing humanity we would not call this planet Earth, we would call it Nirvana.

AGW is actually a tiny issue. There is so much more in the need to know category.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

AGW is actually a tiny issue.

You are insane.

the data coming in produces continual revision of the estimates upward- of how high temps may go, how many species will be affected . . .

and a continual revision downward in terms of how much time we have left to act, how much carbon we may continue to emit and stay below a 2 degree C target from 1950 baseline . . ..

The entire planet is in a dieback stage - a friend of mine was saying that way back in 1997. He is absolutely right.

We are in a period of extinction - one that will rival any of the five great extinction periods that have come before. The human race will most certainly experience a contraction in total global population that will make the Flu Pandemic of 1918 look like a non-event -

And this affects much more than just humanity

This will most certainly affect the children of today.

It will rearrange the political landscape, not just of the United States, but the whole world.

And trolls, along with their dutiful zombies, continue their denials . . . .

We will see, over the course of the next six elections . . .



  • the repelican party is DONE
[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

We kill and injure 240k per year on US highways alone. Another 350k die from McDonald's french fries, 250k from smoking, and 50k from handguns. We abort about about 20 million children per year world wide (many just because they are girls) and 4 million starve to death.

Yes, AGW is a tiny problem that there is really little interest in solving (as evidenced by actions over the past 30 years). In the future people will wonder about our indifference to human suffering while spending hundreds of $ billions on folly like AGW, Alar on apples, silicone breast implants, organic vegetables, and cat food.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13713) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well at least you have it half right. That there are over one billion people on the planet without clean drinking water, and that this problem could potentially be solved for about $35 Billion, is completely unreasonable and proves that civilization itself is not at all civilized.

That does not change the basic fact - August 2012 saw the fastest loss of Arctic sea ice ever recorded - and the total loss of sea ice is a modern record, surpassing the previous record set in 2007

This loss of sea ice suggests we are past the point where it can recover - and does not even consider the thickness of the ice, and where that stands relative to any previous benchmark.

This leaves open the probability that any analysis of the data available will result in further understating the severity of the loss of ice itself, resulting in a cascade of assumptions regarding the nature and extent of the problem that are wrong - and are likewise, understated.

Ice reflects sunlight.

The sea absorbs heat from the sun.

The permafrost, on land and in the sea bed, contains methane - which is released when the permafrost thaws - and methane is more efficient at trapping heat than carbon.

This whole process is on the verge of self perpetuation - like a locomotive with no conductor.

Geological records indicate the seas have in the distant past been 120 meters higher.

Any idea how many environmental refugees will be created with a sea rise of only 120 feet?

hundreds of millions, worldwide.

The loss of glaciers - a source of water for many populations around the world - increases the number of those without clean drinking water today.

Then there is the issue of food production.

There is nothing tiny about the issue of Global Warming.

  • it's global
[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

AGW is cats and dogs compared to real problems that kill, maim, and starve human beings every day.

Spending money and , more importantly, intellectual capital on stopping AGW is like sending coloring books to children starving in Somalia.

With all of the tens of billions spent to date to stop AGW by how many months have we delayed the temp rise 100 years from today?

If you can't answer that question honestly for your self you are not serious about the issue.