The Sierra Club announced today that long-time executive director Carl Pope is stepping down. He’ll be taking on a new role as chairman of the Sierra Club, focusing primarily on climate change.
“While I look forward to continuing to serve the Club in a new capacity, I am ready to turn the leadership of the organization over to someone new,” Pope said in a statement today.
Pope, who has been at the helm of the organization since 1992, will move to the chairman post as soon as a new executive director is selected. The board of directors is preparing to launch a formal search for their new leader in the next few weeks.
“Over these years I have made many wonderful friends, and experienced both joyful victories and tragic setbacks in our struggle for a sustainable future,” Pope continued. “I look forward to many more such victories as I continue this work. My decision comes at a very exciting time for the Sierra Club and the environmental movement. The election of President Barack Obama, and the increase in the number of environmental champions in the Congress, means that after eight years of bitter defense, it is time for America to resume its tradition of environmental leadership.”
Pope is the longest-serving executive director in the club’s history, having filled the role for the entirety of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. He’s been with the group for a total of 30 years.
“Carl steered the Sierra Club through the toughest years in the history of environmental protection,” Allison Chin, president of the club, said in a statement today. “Because of Carl’s leadership the Club is a stronger organization and we are looking forward to building on the foundation he put in place.”
There isn’t currently a chairman of the organization, but there is precedent for past executive directors moving into that role. The club’s second executive director, Michael McCloskey, became chairman in 1985, after serving as director since 1969.
This makes the Sierra Club the third major green group currently in search of new leadership. John Passacantando, who lead Greenpeace USA for eight years, stepped down on Jan. 1 to start a green investment consultancy. Longtime environmental activist Mike Clark is currently serving as Greenpeace’s interim executive director as the group seeks a replacement. Friends of the Earth U.S. is also searching for a new president, as current president Brent Blackwelder is planning to retire.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Comments
View as Flat
Range41 Posted 7:31 am
23 Jan 2009
Permalink
JeffB Posted 10:16 am
23 Jan 2009
Permalink
davedenali Posted 11:42 am
23 Jan 2009
I wish Carl Pope success in his new role.
Permalink
bmwbruno Posted 4:14 pm
23 Jan 2009
Dennis Shekinah
President, Watauga Watershed Alliance
http://www.wataugawatershed.org
Permalink
KarenLOrr Posted 10:44 pm
23 Jan 2009
Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, an extremely rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations. Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article who broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
See "For Love of Money" http://www.susps.org/
Also see ~
"Sierra Club Partners With Clorox: The Next Stage of Greenwashing"
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11150.cf ...
Guardian article on the Sierra-Clorox partnership:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/07/usa
Sierra Club-Clorox deal sparks principled walkout in Michigan
International Herald-Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/16/america/Green-C ...
Traverse City Record-Eagle
http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_204094543 ...
"Greenwashing and Purges at Sierra Club"
http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_slippery_slope.08032 ...
"The Clorox Coup"
http://www.counterpunch.org/orr03312008.html
"Lost in the Fumes: Sierra Club Sells Out to Clorox"
http://www.counterpunch.org/strickler04092008.html
It will be interesting to see who the Sierra Club picks as director and what corporate "partnerships" they come up with next.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 11:00 pm
23 Jan 2009
Permalink
KarenLOrr Posted 11:33 pm
23 Jan 2009
Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article who broke the Gelbaum-Sierra Club story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy.
Mr. Gelbaum is entitled to restrict how his donations to the Sierra Club Foundation are spent. But he should NOT be permitted to influence how other members' dues or donations are spent or to dictate policy choices via the threat of withholding contributions. That is completely inappropriate.
Even worse, Sierra Club leaders accepted Gelbaum's conditions in secret and forced a modification of the Club's policy to conform to his wishes. Furthermore, Club leaders certainly shouldn't have misrepresented immigration reductionists as anti-immigrant or racist in order to guarantee Gelbaum's donations; there is nothing inherently racist or anti-immigrant about sustainable levels of immigration.
Worst of all, the U.S. population continues to grow by about 3 million people per year, of which nearly half are immigrants, and two-thirds of the growth is a result of immigration, if the children of immigrants are included. Our forests continue to be clearcut to provide construction materials, our groundwater is depleted to provide water for our growing population, we grow more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil, and we are unable to reduce our output of greenhouse gases, all thanks to our burgeoning population.
We don't like it when the oil, timber, coal, and nuclear power industries oppose environmental reform, yet we understand why they do it: for the love of money. Is it any better when the Sierra Club opposes environmental reform for the love of money?
For more from SUSPS, click below
http://www.susps.org/
Also see
U.S. Immigration: The Great Sierra Divide
http://www.capsweb.org/newsroom/media_coverage/oberlink_U ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:10 am
24 Jan 2009
And the US government has opposed family planning, healthcare, and reproductive rights for women in these last 8 years, stopping family planning aid programs that concentrated on the highest growth rate regions during the Clinton administration.
So your faction of the club is claiming that high immigration is the vital environmental factor here in the US? At the same time we were encouraging high population growth rates in the highest growth areas on the planet, and accepting as immigrants, less than 25% of our share of that high growth rate that our government encouraged.
It sounds kind of fishy to me. Why wouldn't reproductive rights for women, especially in the highest growth rate regions of the planet be THE issue that far outweighs immigration?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
KarenLOrr Posted 2:49 am
24 Jan 2009
Perhaps you can find out whether the Sierra Club works abroad by contacting them directly.
You might receive anwers to your questions from the National Sierra Club Board of Directors or staff
http://www.sierraclub.org/contact/Default.aspx
Permalink
frflyer Posted 11:21 am
24 Jan 2009
It seems to me that the immigration problem is largly a problem of disparity of wealth in Mexico. A few rich families have huge fortunes while the majority are very poor. The U.S. should seek to end this problem in Mexico. What policies that would entail, or how the U.S. would go about encouraging such reform in Mexico, I will leave to others with more expertise in these things.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 12:28 pm
24 Jan 2009
That is depressing.
grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:13 pm
24 Jan 2009
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:54 pm
24 Jan 2009
Permalink
davedenali Posted 12:45 am
25 Jan 2009
Pope's stepping down and all that does is bring the immigration fruitloops out of the woodwork?
That is depressing.
grist.org
--------
Agreed. Carl Pope has been an effective leader of an organization that's harder to lead than many outsiders appreciate. It is of necessity a Big Tent, and that's a strength, but it does mean that even when 85 percent of your members vote in favor of a position, you still get publicly blasted by a vocal few. And in our impersonal email-internet world, civility has taken a back seat -- unfortunately for us all.
The Sierra Club is also unique in being such a large, grassroots environmental organization. Some would argue about how grassroots it really is, but having a nationwide organization with volunteer acivists is both a huge strength and a huge challenge. In many cases, an organization must speak with a single voice, and the cliche about "herding cats" is often applicable.
Pope says he is changing roles to focus on climate work. Nothing could be more urgent, and I hope he succeeds in his new role. I also hope that the Club finds a dynamic successor to carry on its important work. The world needs an effective Sierra Club more than ever.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 1:01 am
25 Jan 2009
Permalink
davedenali Posted 1:15 am
25 Jan 2009
Permalink
SarahM Posted 5:03 am
25 Jan 2009
Apparently environmental destruction only matters if it happens in the US? I don't really get the logic, except as a poor excuse for xenophobia, which is a bit disheartening to read on a site like this.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 6:49 am
25 Jan 2009
JeffB, the second person to comment on this article, wrote that the Sierra Club doesn't address the issue of U.S. immigration rates and the effect on the environment.
As an explanation for why the Sierra Club doesn't address immigration, I posted excerpts from the Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization website. It was stated that these were excerpts from the SUSPS website and the link to their site was provided.
SUSPS: http://www.susps.org/
According the SUSPS website, the SUSPS vision for environmentalism doen't stop at the U.S borders. It includes educating women worldwide to achieve lower birth rates, lowering consumption levels in industrialized and developing nations, and protecting national parks and the world's remaining wild spaces from exploitation and development.
You can learn more about the Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization at their website: http://www.susps.org/
Regarding Grist's David Roberts' name calling ~
Name calling on blogs is unfortunate. It's unacceptable behavior in any case, particularly when the person doing the name calling is a staff member of the host organization
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 9:28 am
25 Jan 2009
Obama to Let States Restrict Emissions Standards
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26calif.htm ...
Permalink
davedenali Posted 10:18 am
25 Jan 2009
is depressing, so to change the topic and lighten the mood:
Obama to Let States Restrict Emissions Standards
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26calif.htm ... ...
---------
This IS good news, although the Post is reporting as "Obama orders agencies to consider..."
Not coincidentally, allowing these "Pavely" waivers to let states restrict auto emissions is one of the Sierra Club's immediate "Clean Slate" asks of Barack Obama. As is ending mountaintop removal mining, directing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and setting a goal of 35 percent reductions in CO2 emissions by 2020. The Club has also asked him to reinstate Roadless Rule protection for national forests, including Alaska's Tongass. Im glad to see the President acting fast on climate disruption.
Permalink
Calamagrostis Posted 10:31 am
25 Jan 2009
When we encounter those who just don't think that overpopulation is a problem just ask them a simple question "How much is the Earth's population increasing every day?". Most will not know the answer: 200,000 people, every day of the year.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 10:41 am
25 Jan 2009
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:15 am
25 Jan 2009
Regarding the above assertion though:
"For all nonprofits, there is also the enormous challenge of raising enough money to accomplish their goals during a recession. And the urgency of climate disruption means that the Sierra Club and others need more resources than ever."
Greater emphasis on "others" please: SC has been active on climate but not enough of a leader relative to the amount of cash it brings in - it's got more people on its fundraising staff than the top 5 climate action groups have staff, I bet. See 1Sky, 350.org, etc to get a grip on uncompromising grassroots action on climate disruption.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
davedenali Posted 2:37 am
26 Jan 2009
Permalink