The following is a guest essay from Peter Montague1, executive director of the Environmental Research Foundation.
-----
The Sierra Club's national board voted on March 25 to remove the leaders of the Club's 35,000-member Florida chapter, and to suspend the chapter for four years. It was the first time in the Club's 116-year history that such action has been taken against a state chapter.
The leadership of the Florida chapter had been highly critical of the national board's decision in mid-December 2007 to allow The Clorox Company to use the Sierra Club's name and logo to market a new line of non-chlorinated cleaning products called "Green Works." In return, Clorox Company will pay Sierra Club an undisclosed fee, based partly on product sales. The Clorox Company logo will appear on the products as well. A 2004 report [PDF] by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund named The Clorox Company as one of the nation's most chemically dangerous.
The Clorox deal has angered and embittered Club members all across the country, not just in Florida. Since the deal was announced in January, the Club's national leadership has deflected many requests by Club members to see the text of the legal agreement signed with Clorox. Johanna O'Kelley, the Club's director of Licensing & Cause-Related Marketing, will say only that the amount of money involved is "substantial." Carl Pope, the Club's executive director, has said that money was not the driving factor behind the deal: "Our focus was on consumers who otherwise would not migrate to a safer product because they wouldn't be sure it wasn't green scamming," Mr. Pope has written. The idea is that the Clorox logo will convince people the products will work, and the Sierra Club logo will convince people the products are environmentally preferable.
Third parties are already benefiting from the deal. John Ulrich, who heads the Chemical Industry Council of California, claims broadly that "the chemical industry is moving toward developing and marketing safer, more eco-friendly products, pointing to Oakland-based Clorox Co.'s new line of 'green' cleaning products that have been endorsed by the Sierra Club," according to a recent news report. As he spoke, Mr. Ulrich was using the Sierra Club/Clorox deal to try to deflect attention away from a new report [PDF] showing that the chemical industry sickens and kills thousands of Californians each year, costing the state an estimated $2.6 billion in medical expenses and lost wages.
With 2007 revenues of $4.8 billion, The Clorox Company is best-known for its namesake chlorine bleach. The company also manufactures and sells other cleaning products, including Pine-Sol, Clorox Clean-Up, Formula 409, Liquid Plumr, Armor All, plus STP auto-care products, Fresh Step and Scoop Away cat litter, Kingsford charcoal, Hidden Valley and K.C. Masterpiece salad dressings and sauces, Brita water- filtration systems, and Glad bags, wraps and containers. With 7,800 employees worldwide, the company manufactures products in more than two dozen countries and markets them in more than 100 countries.
In its most recent 10-K filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Clorox acknowledges this:
The Company is currently involved in or has potential liability with respect to the remediation of past contamination in the operation of some of its currently and formerly owned and leased facilities. In addition, some of its present and former facilities have been or had been in operation for many years and, over that time, some of these facilities may have used substances or generated and disposed of wastes that are or may be considered hazardous.
And this:
The Company handles and/or transports hazardous substances, including but not limited to chlorine, at its plant sites, including the rail transit of liquid chlorine from its point of origin to our manufacturing facilities. A release of such chemicals, whether in transit or at our facilities, due to accident or an intentional act, could result in substantial liability.
The Clorox Company seems an especially unlikely partner for Sierra Club because many environmental organizations in the U.S., including many members of the Sierra Club, have been working to eliminate chlorine chemistry for the past 15 years. Supporters of the deal point out that it is a step toward that goal. Critics are asking, Who's next for partnerships? DuPont? Dow? Monsanto?
According to postings on the Club's "Clubhouse" website,
- The Club's Corporate Relations Committee examined the proposed deal with Clorox and rejected it, but it was overridden by the national board of directors.
- The Club's Toxics Committee was not consulted before the deal was signed.
- The Club's Corporate Financial Acceptance Policy says, in part, "The Club will not endorse products."
Among grassroots Club members, the process for making the decision, as much as the decision itself, is cause for anger and dismay. The Club has 1.3 million dues-paying members, many of whom are active volunteers in their local communities. Volunteers and paid national staff sometimes have different perspectives on what's most important to the Club.
When grassroots members pointed out that Clorox was fined $95,000 for violating U.S. pesticide laws just as the deal with the Club was being brokered, staffer Johanna O'Kelley dismissed Clorox's culpability, saying their violation was "a technicality."
According to a report in Florida's Palm Beach Post, "Many past and present chapter leaders have declined to speak publicly about the dispute, with some saying they fear punishment from the national organization. In a recent letter, the club instructed leaders not to 'seek public media coverage of this internal board decision.'"
On the Club's "Clubhouse" web site, several Club members have called for a full national membership referendum on the Clorox deal, but so far the national staff in San Francisco have not adopted that suggestion.
-----
1Disclosure: Peter Montague is a member of the Sierra Club.
Toxic suds want to watch you shower
Comments
View as Flat
SierraDavid Posted 10:47 am
28 Mar 2008
This is in response to reports about the Sierra Club National Volunteer Board of Directors' vote to suspend the Florida Chapter volunteer Executive Committee for four years. What has not been clear in some reports is that the action is the result of requests from Sierra Club members in Florida for national volunteers to investigate internal disputes and comes after much dissatisfaction, anger and frustration at the Chapter level and a multi-year process at the state and national level to improve the situation before this action was taken.
While it is a serious step and was a very difficult decision, it was made after much thought and extensive review. The impressive work of Florida 19 groups to protect the environment will continue unaffected by this action. The Sierra Club looks forward to healing this rift and is confident that the Sierra Club in Florida will come out of this situation a stronger organization.
Over the past year and a half, the national Sierra Club has been asked multiple times to intervene in Florida Chapter matters by members concerned that factionalism compromised the Chapter's ability to accomplish its conservation work. An internal audit and comment period confirmed that the problems created by rifts in the Chapter made it difficult for the Chapter to be governed effectively.
Some reports have either explicitly or implicitly connected the suspension decision to opposition to the Sierra Club's recently announced partnership with Clorox Greenworks products or other disagreements over national policies adopted by the volunteer Board of Directors. This is completely false and a spurious connection. In fact, the difficult and exhaustive process to address the dysfunction of the Florida Chapter began long before the partnership with Clorox was announced--to be clear, Sierra Club and Clorox did not even begin initial conversations until July of 2007, with internal review among committees occurring last fall and the public announcement this past January. The process to address conflict in the Florida Chapter that ultimately resulted in suspension began in at least 2006.
As with many tough decisions inside a large and democratic organization like the Sierra Club, there have been internal disagreements. But the measures taken in Florida, which were made after considerable review, deliberation and solicitation of input from members throughout the chapter, were taken because the rifts in the chapter made it difficult to effectively govern. Disagreements between some leaders in the chapter and the national board over Clorox played no role in the Board's decision.
On the issue of the Clorox partnership itself: The Green Works products and The Clorox Company were vetted by a broad number of volunteers and staff -- including the Toxics Committee, the Energy Committee, and the Environmental Quality Committee. The Corporate Relations Committee also vetted this and approved of the Green Works products and of The Clorox Company, but did not approve the cause-related marketing relationship that would generate revenue for the Club. The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors approved that program because the Board is the decision-making body on cause-related marketing programs such as this one.
This partnership -- our first cause-related marketing venture involving a widely-distributed consumer product -- was announced the week of January 14 as part of the 2008 launch of the Green Works line of five natural household cleaning products. The Green Works cleaning products are made from coconut-based cleaning agent and essential lemon oils; there is no phosphorus or bleach; they are biodegradable and 99% petrochemical-free; there is no animal testing and they are hypo-allergenic.
The Green Works line will make it easier and more affordable for millions of Americans to buy eco-friendly products and this a huge opportunity for the Sierra Club to influence the buying behavior of millions of people and give a giant kick-start to the market for safe, green, affordable household cleaning products. Up until now, a big stumbling block for families who want to live a greener lifestyle has been the high cost of "green" products and the fact that they are not always easy to find. Green Works' natural, environmentally-preferable cleaning products are priced at only 20-25 percent higher than conventional cleaning products, which is much lower than other natural cleaning brands, which can be priced 50-100 percent higher. Green Works products will also be easy to find in 24,000 mainstream stores in the United States and Canada.
To us, the fact that Green Works is the first new product that Clorox has launched in 20 years is a sign that major companies see the green market maturing and recognize it's possible to manufacture and sell products that will be good for business and for the planet. Industry has to be a part of the solution and the Sierra Club has the power to influence corporations to move in the right direction. We believe and hope that this will be a selling proposition that other companies will be quick to adopt.
The bottom line is that these products are environmentally safe, affordable, work well, will be available to millions of people, alter consumer behavior overall and support the good work of the Sierra Club. It is our chance to use the power of our brand to help people who want to do the right thing, to do the right thing. And that is a great opportunity for us. Individuals who want to learn more about the products and the Sierra Club's process for deciding on the partnership can read more at the Sierra Club website at: http://www.sierraclub.org/greenworks/
Robert Cox
President,
Sierra Club Board of Directors
Permalink
SierraDavid Posted 10:51 am
28 Mar 2008
Permalink
human power Posted 12:47 pm
28 Mar 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:34 pm
28 Mar 2008
It seems that environmental lobbying groups have fallen under the control of ...lobbyists, hehey. Industry lobbyists disguised as enviro leaders.
We been sold out. Time to storm the barricades and take back these orgs. Like Barack is storming the democratic party and will soon storm the whitehouse. A peacefull storm. Zen like. Aum.
Make a storm out of the breath of fire, a collective breath.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:02 pm
28 Mar 2008
What would be these "alternative cleaning materials" that the Sierra Club thinks are so expensive?
White vinegar: cheap
Baking Soda: cheap
Boraxo: cheap
hydrogen peroxide: cheap
sodium hydroxide: cheap
basic biodegrdable detergent: cheap
steam: cheap
orange oil: cheap
Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the safe, environmentally friendly cleaning agents are better than the standard crap sold at the supermarket in function and price. Why would I need green labeled crap from the Clorox?
The Sierra Club sold out.
Hayduke Lives!!
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:04 pm
28 Mar 2008
For an organization that claims to be "democratic" (as they did in the rebuttal above), they should know that disclosure is a big parta that, 'specially if the decision has many memebrs questioning the ethics behind the decision.
I can understand why Clorox might put a confidentiality or non-disclosure clause in the agreement, but they probably shouldn't have gone through with it if they knew it would upset their base this much and they wouldn't be allowed to disclose and explain the full terms of the decision.
Permalink
GreenNPR Posted 7:54 pm
28 Mar 2008
Are there any "true" grassroots. non-corporatized, eco-nonprofits left? I'd say Friends of the Earth comes close.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:20 pm
28 Mar 2008
http://www.orionsociety.org/ogn
Hard to say in terms of the Big 10 (EDF, WWF, Sierra, NRDC, etc) any more because of their lack of transparency, but FOE and Greenpeace stand tall and are not nearly as corporate in their approach as the others.
Amen Pangolin on the inexpensive cleaners info.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:25 am
29 Mar 2008
As with many of the big environmental NGOs, the Sierra Club has suffered from what one observer has called "circular firing squads": fierce disagreements within the organization's membership and leadership. As part of that spectacle we saw Daniel Becker, the Sierra Club's top global warming expert, join forces with CATO's Jerry Taylor to write op-edpieces critical of the nation's biofuel policies, while the Club's president, Carl Pope, was actively lobbying in support of biofuels. Here's a quote about Pope's position from an article from April 2006:
Sierra Club President Carl Pope spoke about the recent interests in bio-fuels and the political advantages of having agricultural interests adding pressure to politicians who never seemed much interested in alternative energy until recently. "The environmental chorus was never big enough to sing this song," according to Pope. "We needed a bigger chorus, so now we've added a bass section."
In Florida, this tragic opera has simply played out on a smaller stage.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 12:43 am
29 Mar 2008
"Go home, you icky, ignorant sheeple who shop here, and get to mixing vinegar with baking soda!"
Why didn't they think of that?
grist.org
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:51 am
29 Mar 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:05 am
29 Mar 2008
Here and elsewhere, they've run into kneejerk anti-corporatism and accusations of "selling out."
But unless you think all corporations of a certain size are evil merely by virtue of existing -- and that even recommending their benign products and accepting their money is an unthinkable sin -- I'm having trouble seeing what the downside is here. I understand and share the concern about transparency, but the idea that grassroots green groups should stay more "pure" by remaining in their largely ineffectual niches, out of sight and out of mind for the vast bulk of the U.S. population, baffles me.
In short: what's the downside of the Sierra Club recommending clean Clorox products? Somebody explain it to me slowly.
grist.org
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:29 am
29 Mar 2008
But as somebody who has studied eco-labels -- and the evolving process by which eco-labels are developed, applied and endorsed -- it looks to me as if there are some questions that can and should legitimately be asked about this arrangement.
Best practice nowadays generally requires that an NGO create or involve separate and independent organizations for setting the standards, certifying conformity to those standards, and accrediting the certifiers. That is the model that WWF followed when it established the Marine Stewardship Council(MSC), which administers a scheme to certify that fish products displaying its logo have been harvested from sustainably managed fisheries.
Although WWF initially teamed up with the European food giant, Unilever, to create the MSC, there was never any implication that it made money out of the deal (e.g., in order to cross-subsidize other programs). And although Unilever was keen to procure fish from certified fisheries, the scheme was from its inception never intended to become proprietary. That is to say, any company that follows certain chain-of-custody rules can buy certified fish and display the MSC logo.
One can only hope that if the Sierra Club is moving to become an eco-labelling organization that it hive off this activity to an independent body, establish transparent standards, and make the label available to any merchant of cleaning products who meets those standards.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:43 am
29 Mar 2008
Perhaps I'll get in touch with someone from SC and ask about it.
grist.org
Permalink
archigeek Posted 1:58 am
29 Mar 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:16 am
29 Mar 2008
No one suggests such a thing. GreenNPR merely wanted to know whom to trust. I trust any organization whose meetings I can show up at, or which I can call up for answers without being brushed off by a VP for External Affairs, or any of the other cogs in the Big 10's bureaucracies.
The reality is that we need both the big bloated nationals and the grassroots. The nationals are great for certain things like big time conservation efforts, research, and lobbying. But for this, they rake in 90% of the donations made every year to green causes.
The grassroots, though, are the guys that are the LEAST out of sight/mind to most folks, b/c they're the folks who come to our kids classrooms, buy that farm on the corner about to be dozed for condos, organize community haz waste drives, and advocate for good green policy on a local level...they work where we live. They just lack the resources to expand their missions to the point that everyone sees what they're doing.
The nationals and their enormous PR departments monopolize the national green debate and corner the market on visibility thanks to the power of the purse. That's why chemical companies come calling: their brands are good for business.
You yourself have lamented the lack of financial support for small, agile grassroots groups like Cornucopia Institute:
"...I wish scrappy, effective little organizations like Cornucopia got more of the philanthropy money sloshing around the green world."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/30/065/19672
I rave about this b/c it's my mission to: I don't mind the nationals and their agenda so much as the perception that they represent the green movement. They don't. They're good, and are doing good things, but they're not elected or representative, and sometimes they act like tyrants.
If you want to support lasting change, then you fund the grassroots better, as Mark Dowie said so well here in Grist in 2005:
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/05/19/mark_dow ...
My 2 cents, as usual.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:31 am
29 Mar 2008
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4068
If the new products are effective, then why continue to make and sell the old ones full of chlorine?
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:39 am
29 Mar 2008
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:49 am
29 Mar 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:26 am
29 Mar 2008
What unnerves me is that some enviros -- probably disproportionately represented on internet board like this, much more so than in actual small community grassroots groups -- seem steeped in contempt for ordinary people -- where they live, how they get around, what they buy, what they value, what they watch and read, etc. etc. But disdain that stuff enough and you end up distancing yourself from any point of contact or commonality. (And I direct this caution as much at myself as at others -- the elitism is strong within me, Anakin.)
JMG, from what I understand the story about chlorine is not nearly so clear as you make it out. Regardless, even if Clorox is a bad actor, this new product line is a step toward changing that. Perhaps if it's successful they will drop other product lines. It seems exceedingly strange to reject the company's attempt to change on the grounds that they haven't already changed. Kind of a catch 22 there. Within the bounds of their lawful obligation to make money for their shareholders, what would you have Clorox execs do?
grist.org
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:03 am
29 Mar 2008
No offesnse, but I get awfully tired of that excuse.
Seventh Generation makes money for their shareholders. Whole Foods makes money for their shareholders.
There are plenty of companies that make money for shareholders and do it in a more sustainable and friendly way.
There's a difference between makin' money for shareholders, and makin' money for shareholders as quickly and in as many large amounts as possible, regardless of the consequences.
There are several eco-friendly companies I know of that make similar products at least as good, if not better than Clorox's "green line", and could certainly use the publicity from Sierra alot more than Clorox can.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 8:35 am
29 Mar 2008
Permalink
davedenali Posted 9:59 am
29 Mar 2008
To Mr. Bloom. The Sierra Club counts 1.3 million members and supporters. This figure allows a fair, apples-to-apples comparison with other major environmental organizations that also count supporters. I don't know the actual membership number but think you are a bit low.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 10:04 am
29 Mar 2008
Permalink
davedenali Posted 10:28 am
29 Mar 2008
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 11:47 am
29 Mar 2008
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:53 pm
29 Mar 2008
What would I have them do? Stop selling chlorine-based products to consumers -- when we learned that CFCs (chlorine again) were destroying the ozone, we didn't say "Gee, umm, if it's not to much of a hit to your bottom line, would you mind coming up with some CFC free products, and if the market accepts them, we'll look forward to your maybe cutting back on the CFCs."
NO, we instead arranged an international ban on CFCs, which is having good results. Heading off THAT was what caused the "Chlorine Chemistry Council" to form and to begin waging the "Chlorine is Life" campaign (hmmmm, remind you of anything else ...?? "CO2 -- some call it pollution, we call it life." Sound familiar??)
The bottom line is that Sierra Club -- promoter of jet travel and fossil fuel use all across the globe -- has rented itself out to a company to help them promote a product, despite the environmental harm caused by this same company's products. Since SC hasn't endorsed any other cleaning products (such as those mentioned above) the inference is clear -- it's not the value of the products (cleaning/enviro consequence) that matters, it's the size of the check to SC.
Since few responsible companies can afford to write checks to help Big Green groups, we reach the strange situation where environmentally sound products from companies who DON'T sell any destructive products will NOT carry an endorsement label from Sierra Club, but the one Cl- free product from Chlorox will ...
Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 10:32 pm
29 Mar 2008
Selling endorsements to the highest bidder is what offends.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:20 am
30 Mar 2008
When you talk about theses people:
What unnerves me is that some enviros -- probably disproportionately represented on internet board like this, much more so than in actual small community grassroots groups -- seem steeped in contempt for ordinary people -- where they live, how they get around, what they buy, what they value, what they watch and read, etc. etc. But disdain that stuff enough and you end up distancing yourself from any point of contact or commonality. (And I direct this caution as much at myself as at others -- the elitism is strong within me, Anakin.)
You really are talking about the heart of the dark side. The "
good germans" of the environmental movement. The idiots barrelling down the highway along in a GMC Denali SUV and a "Keep Tahoe Blue" bumpers sticker. You're talking about my sister with not one but two 4,500 sq ft. mcmansions (one in tahoe-donner), five vehicles for a four-person family (but two hybrids) who obsessively recycles every scrap of paper and aluminum foil that passes through her kitchen.
We are supposed to applaud this massive excercise in cognitive dissonence because it's "well meaning." Um, yeah. As well meaning as a Global Warming conference in Bali. Never mind that the major players are all in China, the US and India and the bulk of the observers coming from Europe. We'll have everybody fly a few extra thousand miles to the southern hemisphere.
The next international Global Warming should be held in Argentina and an 80 ft. mountain of coal should be piled up on the beach and lit so that we all understand the freaking waste of it all.
So lets ignore all of those people and instead rag on us retail environmental activists. Me typing away on my (used) laptop in my 2-bedroom duplex with all 11 (i counted) lightbulbs in my house being CFL's and little Toyota Matrix (also used) and Xtracycle. Crap, I even got clipped six months after my second kid so as to limit my impact and that HURT. WE should be ignored.
Face it, you can't sell crap to true believer enviros. They've perfected freeganism and pretty much are immune to advertising. If nobody buys advertising nobody in the media makes any money. If nobody makes any money they would all have to get jobs in the fossil fueled, destructive economy like everybody else. So the media all treads carefully to the right of endorsing any actual solution. Because the true problem is that we have chosen to enslave our societies to the ever present pursuit of better consumer crap.
You can't get off this treadmill because should you even try you quickly find that you no longer have the cash to pay for food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Work part time and you get to choose two. There is no place to retreat to anymore. The various factions in this battle are all crammed cheek to jowl and don't know who the other participants are.
The reason that I am a doomer is that it appears to be the logical extrapolation of the facts. The environment is crashing, the economy is crashing, and the solution proposed is "more consumer spending?"
Go!! Lemmings!! Go!!
<rant off>
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
KO Posted 1:53 pm
30 Mar 2008
The National Sierra Club Board of Directors voted on March 25, 2008 to dismantle the entire democratically -elected structure of the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, the fourth largest Chapter in the nation.
The Florida Chapter, comprising 35,000 individual members representing 5% of Sierra's National membership, was usurped in an unprecedented and appalling coup.
The sacking of 27 elected representatives and removal of 75 volunteer appointees, 24 Issue Committees - over 150 state-level positions in all - constitutes the main carnage of the March 25th Massacre.
They are all now gone - dismissed in one fell swoop by National's decision.
The National bureaucracy manufactured the convenient local dissent to serve as a pretense for swatting our Chapter leadership out of their way. They found the Chapter's scrutiny of their policies inconvenient.
It was inconvenient to justify their devotion to ill-advised biofuels schemes.
It was inconvenient to justify their Clorox-like promotion of more commercial products (the backbone of their announced $500 million dollar fundraising campaign) authorized in an unannounced board decision just days before the Florida suspension.
And it was really inconvenient and annoying to put up with local resistence to the stampede toward National control of Sierra activities in Florida.
Thus, the passion, expertise and devotion of the many democratically elected local volunteers was deemed inconvenient and disposable, replaced by an "Executive Committee" of 5 National officers. This absentee "brain trust" has wrested control of approximately $200,000 of the Chapter's funds, along with control of Florida Sierra programs.
With this one visionary act, the Chapter's various conservation, political and legal programs have ground to a halt under this absentee control.
But a far greater price is to be exacted in the incalculable damage to the greater cause of conservation -- damage recklessly inflicted to the reputation and credibility of Sierra Club, eviscerating the effectiveness of the very members and volunteers who stand in the front lines of the struggle to protect some vestige of Florida's remaining natural systems.
It is telling that the National Sierra Club is disbanding this hard-working and successful team of volunteers and grassroots conservationists even as National eagerly pursues its unsavory new focus on lucrative revenues from corporate donations.
The process of the investigation of the Florida Chapter by National staff was scandalous. There was no fair play involved.
The investigation was based on unfounded accusations, vague and unsubstantiated claims, advanced on a patchwork of hearsay, obscured by anonymity and cloaked in secrecy. The Chapter, leaders, and volunteers were denied the precious and essential American rights to due process - to be able to face their accusers, and to have a fair hearing based on facts.
National Sierra Club President Robert Cox continues to roll out his tawdry collection of unsupported statements in his letter to Grist posted by the National Sierra Club press office.
Robert Cox is queasy about this because he knows that these Florida Sierrans have unfairly been personally attacked, maligned and slandered before the state and the entire nation. He knows that public scrutiny will expose the actions of the National Sierra Club as contemptuous of basic American rights, and of the Club's own code of conduct.
The National board has destroyed the largest and most effective environmental organization in Florida. For that, Robert Cox owes an apology.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 9:57 pm
30 Mar 2008
Permalink
KO Posted 11:49 pm
30 Mar 2008
Two of the ingredients in the new Clorox-Sierra Club line are corn ethanol and coconut oil. The environmental damage associated with corn ethanol and the rainforest destruction associated with coconut oil is well known.
Contrary to the suggestion in the Robert Cox press release, the Sierra Club-Clorox partnership was not well thought of within the National volunteer committees.
In their statement opposing the partnership between the Sierra Club and Clorox, the Confronting Corporate Power Task Force wrote:
"We not only oppose the substantive decision itself, but condemn the undemocratic and autocratic nature of the decision. The process used to make this decision demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the basic democratic values, history and tradition of the Sierra Club."
In their resolution opposing the Clorox deal, the National Agriculture Committee stated that the Clorox Company is recognized as a major polluter, a consistent violator of environmental laws and produces products that are unusually damaging to people and the ecosystem.
The Agriculture Committee requested that the National Sierra Club Board of Directors rescind the partnership with the Clorox Company and quickly return any royalties that might have accrued from the Clorox Company.
The decision to join with the Clorox Company was made by only 3 National board members.
Of the 5 National Sierra Club board members who now control the formerly grass roots Florida Chapter, 3 voted to endorse and accept royalties from the polluting Clorox Company. These people will be appointing the "steering committee" that will oversee the remains of the Florida Chapter.
The decision to align the Sierra Club with the Clorox Company set a high bar for future corporate endorsements. It begs the question - what next?
If Dow, Monsanto, and Cargill set up tiny "eco-friendly" divisions to capitalize on the emerging "green" market, will the Sierra Club logo appear on those labels?
If Smithfield Foods puts a free range hog farm next to one of their unspeakable CAFOs in North Carolina, will the Sierra Club "partner" with Smithfield and receive royalties in exchange for their logo appearing on Smithfield's shrink wrapped pork chops?
Perhaps next up will be the Sierra Club logo on ethanol pumps - or "Homegrown Biofuels." That's how National Sierra Club press releases refer to ethanol.
During the legislative sessions, National Sierra Club can continue to send urgent Action Alerts to members urging them to contact their elected respresentatives to vote for more "homegrown biofuels" subisidies and mandates.
It could be a win-win situation for them.
Permalink
KO Posted 11:58 pm
30 Mar 2008
EPA ID: FLD984171470; Name: Clorox Co
and has a Violation history in Florida.
Activity and Violation History
http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/www_rcra/reports/handler_h ...
Clorox Company is party to 4 SUPERFUND sites, and toxic waste
dumps in 7 states.
CLOROX dumped hazardous waste in Tampa Florida
Peak Oil Superfund site in Tampa.
Peak Oil Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed De Minimis Settlement| Federal Register Environmental Documents | USEPA
Federal Register: August 28, 1997
Peak Oil Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed De Minimis Settlement
SUMMARY: Under section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has offered approximately 650 de minimis
parties at the Peak Oil Superfund Site (Site) an opportunity to enter
into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to settle claims for past
and future response costs at the Site.
...The Clorox Company....
Dated: August 21, 1997.
Richard D. Green,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division
EPA recently filed criminal charges and fined CLOROX for
violating federal pesticide laws.
U.S. EPA fines The Clorox Company for violating federal pesticide laws | Newsroom | US EPA
U.S. EPA found 38 violations of federal pesticide law by the Clorox Company in 2007
Sierra Club must not do business with companies that have criminal
violations and damage the environment, public health and welfare.
Attached are FL DEP Hazardous Waste Violation notices.
There are criminal investigations going on with Clorox company by the U.S. Department of Justice.
EPA enforcement officials conducted a detailed investigation
that uncovered 38 violations of federal pesticide law by the
Clorox Company in 2007.
EPA is seeking a penalty from The Clorox Company,
for distributing export-only unregistered pesticides within
the United States.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
requires that unregistered pesticides must be clearly
marked with the required labeling to prevent the products
from inadvertently entering the U.S. market.
Clorox violated these requirements that protect public health
and the environment by ensuring safe and effective handling,
application, and disposal of pesticides, and by preventing false,
misleading, or unverifiable product claims.
The law also prohibits marketing of misbranded, improperly
labeled, or adulterated pesticides. Clorox is in violation of that law.
Clorox Company is responsible for polluting wetlands
in Florida. Clorox Co. is a party to the PeakOil SUPERFUND site.
In Tampa, Florida, the Clorox Company manufactures explosives,
Dynamite, Explosive cartridges, Propellant explosives,
Explosive charges, Plastic explosives, Aluminized explosives,
Ammonium nitrate explosives, Nitroglycerin powder explosives,
Pyrotechnics, Propellants. They create hazardous waste.
Where does that waste go?
Sierra Club volunteers raised their own money to challenge
this company to stop illegal dumping and to force a clean up.
EPA has served Clorox Company an Administrative Order on
Consent (AOC) to settle claims for past and future response
costs at the Florida Peak Oil Superfund Site.
Historically, Clorox Company has not made material capital
expenditures for environmental control facilities or intend to
comply with environmental laws and regulations. (SEC)
The Company is involved in many Superfund toxic waste
sites across the country. The company is known for repeatedly
trying to obstruct the Superfund program.
TOXIC WASTE SITES by the CLOROX Company are in:
New Jersey
The Company has been named as a potentially responsible
party ("PRP") by the Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control Act,
the Sanitary Landfill Closure and Contingency Fund Act,
and a section of the Solid Waste Management Act, for a
site in New Jersey
Indiana
During fiscal year 1995, the Company entered into a
"de minimis" settlement relating to its alleged involvement
at the American Chemical Services site in Griffith,
Indiana.
Kansas
The Company has been identified as a PRP by the
Environmental Protection Agency for a site in Johnson
County, Kansas.
Illinois
In fiscal year 1994, the Company incurred environmental
remediation costs at one of its facilities in Chicago,
Illinois
Maryland
Frederick, Maryland manufacturing facility.
Environmental investigations are being
conducted
Michigan
The Company has been named in a private action by a
party seeking contribution by the Company for remediation
costs relating to a site that the Company may have
formerly been associated with in Dickinson County,
Michigan.
Washington
A former subsidiary of the Company has been named as a
PRP by the Environmental Protection Agency for a site
in Tulalip, Washington
Property Owner Notification of Discovery of Pollution
198045 CLOROX BLEACH PLANT
3601 EAST COLUMBUS
Tampa,Florida
EPA, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SECURE AGREEMENTS TO CLEAN UP TWO
TAMPA, FLORIDA SUPERFUND SITES FOR BETWEEN $22 AND $32 MILLION
156 Companies, Government Agencies and Others Agree to Fund Cleanup
Under three separate settlements filed today in U.S. District
Court in Tampa, the Clorox Co and 155 parties will reimburse
the Environmental Protection Agency $7.8 million for past
cleanup costs and pay between $14 and $25 million to cleanup soil,
surface water and groundwater contaminated with heavy metals,
PCB's, and other hazardous substances. As part of the settlements,
they will also monitor nearby wetlands to ensure they do not become
contaminated.
Peak Oil Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed De Minimis Settlement| Federal Register Environmental Documents | USEPA
Federal Register: August 28, 1997
Peak Oil Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed De Minimis Settlement
SUMMARY: Under section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has offered approximately 650 de minimis
parties at the Peak Oil Superfund Site (Site) an opportunity to enter
into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to settle claims for past
and future response costs at the Site.
...The Clorox Company....
Dated: August 21, 1997
Richard D. Green,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 4:58 am
31 Mar 2008
Permalink
davedenali Posted 6:47 am
31 Mar 2008
Permalink
flenviro Posted 8:37 am
31 Mar 2008
The Florida Chapter almost destroyed the environment movement here. They constantly fought with other groups and funders. It was always a power struggle and we never got much done.
The Clorox issue is just a coincidence. The corrupt Florida ex-leaders are very clever, one must admit. If they can, they will destroy national sierra. They killed off Florida LCV before this. That was also cut off from the national and is essentially dead. Its a pattern.
Fortunately, these were just a couple bad apples. We hope some of those that fell under their spell will come around in a few months and the Florida Chapter will rebound and again be a place for volunteers that want to work together can succeed and feel valued.
Florida Environment Blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:51 pm
01 Apr 2008
When readers of Brandchannel.com were asked what brand they think of as truly green or going green, the top answer was no brand at all. Almost 20 percent of the 2,000 survey respondents said no brand is serious about being green. "There are attempts at establishing green credentials-but these attempts are happening in silos within brands and companies," says one reader's answer. "Very often, the 'green' aspect of the business is far outweighed by the 'non-green' areas."
The next top four choices was Toyota at 9.4 percent, BP at 3.3 percent, The Body Shop at 3.1 percent and Honda with 2.7 percent. The remainder of the respondents chose a variety of other companies, including General Electric, Virgin, Patagonia, Greenpeace, Whole Foods Market, Marks & Spencer, Apple, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Innocent, Shell, BMW, Seventh Generation, Aveda and Clorox.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
KO Posted 6:03 am
02 Apr 2008
"They killed off Florida LCV before this. That was also cut off from the national and is essentially dead."
"flenviro" has made this spurious statement on several newspaper blogs, listservs and now on Grist.
It's beyond me why "flenviro" hides behind a pseudonym to spread false information about the Florida League of Conservation Voters. Why do this?
The National League of Conservation Voters and state groups are NOT affiliated and never have been.
The National LCV and Beldon set up the Florida Conservation Alliance which closed its' doors several years ago. The Florida Conservation Alliance was affiliated with the Holland & Knight law firm.
The Florida League of Conservation Voters is alive and well and has wonderful volunteers around the state.
"flenviro" knows this and yet continues to spread false information.
I say to "flenviro", for perhaps the 10th time, stop making these false claims.
Karen Orr
Board member
Florida League of Conservation Voters
Permalink
ids Posted 8:34 am
03 Apr 2008
With Cloro$, SC can now offer special membership's for $15 with rucksack giveaways to ordinary people, growing its rolls based on shit. It seems the most insidious form of astroturfing around.
The contempt shown toward ordinary people from Washington and msm is growing in an expanding circle of lies and wars.
Permalink
asterisque Posted 11:15 am
03 Apr 2008
Permalink
KO Posted 1:28 am
04 Apr 2008
The Florida League of Conservation Voters website is being updated.
See:
http://www.floridalcv.org/
Check back soon.
In the meantime, if you'd like information about the Florida League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, see:
Florida LCV
http://www.floridalcv.org/FLCVEdFund/index.htm
Florida League of Conservation Voters Education Fund articles:
http://www.floridalcv.org/FLCVEdFund/environmental_effect ...
Karen Orr
Gainesville, Florida
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 9:06 am
04 Apr 2008
Permalink