meant to say 18 groups in Florida. dw

I left the Sierra Club two decades ago when they put an add for an SUV on the back cover of the members' magazine. I see they are still in bed with the big polluters. It has been sad to see this organization stray so far from its founding principles, but I guess when you lay down with dogs you will wake up with fleas. Any organization that advocates consuming our way out of our environmental problems should not be seriously considered to speak for environmentalists.

Seems to have followed suite, in it's support for clean coal and fuel farming.  They maybe changing their mind on coal?

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

...may be avoided if the Sierra Club would just come out and say how much they got paid for it, and where, specifically, they intend to apply those funds.

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.

I've been very suspicious of the Sierra Culb and the National Resource Defense Fund as they've both grown closer to corporate interests.

Are there any "true" grassroots. non-corporatized, eco-nonprofits left? I'd say Friends of the Earth comes close.

Instead of endorsing a relatively cheap sustainable alternative from a known and trusted brand, the Sierra Club should pay to have signs hung in the cleaning aisle at Wal-Mart:

"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

These are only my personal opinions.

... is that this looks to me like part of an effort by the Sierra Club to meet real people where they are -- i.e., in Wal-Mart, making quick choices, mainly based on price. They figure their imprimatur might sway some people to make the more sustainable choice. In return they get some money from Clorox to put toward their other initiatives.

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

I don't have a huge problem with the two one-offs they've done so far, but you're right, I wouldn't want it to become a regular practice. It would be very, very easy to start to see it as a money-maker. I want companies meeting standards, not wooing the SC. The standards should be public, transparent, and non-proprietary, as you say.

Perhaps I'll get in touch with someone from SC and ask about it.

grist.org

I am not unopposed to these public-private partnerships per se, but I am often leery of them for the precise reasons illustrated above: namely, that there is often limited oversight and insufficient transparency associated with these agreements. How could Carl Pope get so worked up about bio-fuels before the full impact of any programs' implementation could be assessed? Then to sack the entire board in Florida over this disagreement...hmm, peculiar. Frankly, the length of the press release is making my BSometer go crazy. This stinks to high heaven. Unfortunately, I may need to end my relationship with Sierra. For now. Sad, just sad. When there are billions upon billons of USD arrayed against the switch-over to less-polluting ways to generate our power, its rather dishaeartening to see organizations I once admired compromising their--and my--values because they have lost control of their message and the narrative of sustainablity to the green-washers.

The mellotron is your friend.

Ouch -- I've got it's and its wrong twice in the previous comment. My apologies, there's no edit function for comments that I can see.

Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

I don't disagree with anything you said, particularly about the funding disparity -- though I'd put responsibility for that more at the feet of the myopic and under-examined green philanthropy community than the big greens themselves. And I agree that we need both kinds of groups.

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

Within the bounds of their lawful obligation to make money for their shareholders, what would you have Clorox execs do?

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.

Erratum:  The Sierra Club has about 700,000 dues-paying members (not the 1.3 million noted in the post).  Note that this figure has been dropping at a fairly steady pace from a high a few years back of about 750,000.

Steve Bloom writes: Erratum:  The Sierra Club has about 700,000 dues-paying members (not the 1.3 million noted in the post).  Note that this figure has been dropping at a fairly steady pace from a high a few years back of about 750,000.

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.

I am a long time Sierra Club member.  I see nothing at all wrong with the Club being associated with a carefully screened, environmentally benign, reasonably priced cleaning product.  Nor do I see anything wrong with the Club getting paid for that.  The good work the Sierra Club does takes money.  Member dues alone don't pay even half of the expense of paying staff and supporting a large-scale environmental advocacy organization.  

Club President Robbie Cox may need to be polite.  I don't. The Clorox Greenworks association is controversial within the Club, as was the suspension of the Florida Chapter.  But Montague's assertion that the the two were intertwined -- that the Sierra Club crushed a group of brave Florida dissenters -- is nothing but a hatchet job.  He obviously spoke to no one outside of the suspended Chapter Executive Commmitte, and he obviously knew nothing about his subject.  I'm disappointed in Grist for running this.

Sierra Club and the other big groups like NRDC and Environmental Defense have evolved away from the old model of environmental activism. This is a good thing. As far as the specifics of the deal I can't say much because I don't know much about it, but maybe co-operation with former enemies will be more productive.

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?

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.

"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."

Selling endorsements to the highest bidder is what offends.  

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

Posted on behalf of Betsy Roberts, former Florida Chapter Chairwoman by Karen Orr, former Florida Chapter Political Committee Chairwoman.

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.

Whatever anyone thinks of either the Clorox licensing agreement or the suspension of the Florida Chapter leaders, note that not even the "National Sierra Club Coup" posting -- apparently from former Florida Chapter leaders -- claims that the Montague article is remotely accurate.  Not even the suspended leaders are going to tell you that the suspension had any connnection to dissent over the Clorox Greenworks agreement.  Montague's article is a hatchet job.

Most Grist readers won't be surprised that the National Sierra Club Clorox Green Wash brand is not the ecologically friendly product line promoted by Robert Cox in the Sierra Club press release.

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.

The latest flap over the Clorox payola to the Sierra Club is just one of many violations of members'  and the public trust. National Sierra dismantled the NYS group some years back because of the group's unwavering stance againt deforestation. In fact it sued them. They didnt need a connection between the Clorox deal and the dissolution of the whole Florida chapter. The club has undoubtedly been looking for an excuse to purge the dissenters. The club's statement that industry needs to play a role is disingenuous. If industry seriously wants a role, they can play it without bribing the enviros. This is greenwashing and it is a disgrace that Sierra Club is part of this charade. Like all the other big enviros, the managerial elites are taking over as a way of showing potential donors (corporate), funders and the media that they are "reasonable people" who aren't starting a revolution and who can be trusted to not rock the boat. Sierra Club members need to get control of their organization fast. Do we really need the big enviros as some suggest? That is an open question. Maybe they do some useful research but if they are double-dealing secretly and refuse to be accountable to their members or to the wider public they are undercutting not only their own work but OURS. People need to know which groups are honest and trustworthy and which are not so they can put their money where it won't be misused. I rejoined Sierra Club after some years' absence, mostly to support the NYC group, but unless it changes its tune fast I have no intention of renewing my membership.

I want to see the Sierra Club have enough money to hire good staff and support volunteers who can build support and get a comprehensive climate bill in the next Congress.  I want the Sierra Club to have enough money to expose John McCain's stinking environmental record and keep him out of the White House. If you regard all corporate money as tainted, I have news: there isn't a staffed environmental organization in this country whose funding can't be traced to a corporation if you look far enough.  I'm not much interested in organizational purity tests.  The problem isn't big enviro groups.  To the contrary, the problem is that the major organizations like Sierra Club aren't nearly big enough to have the clout they need to do what has got to get done: strong federal action to stop global warming.  

It wasn't about Clorox.  It was about a really messed up Florida Chapter.  A few obnoxious self serving "activists" hijacked the chapter and chased away any real volunteers.  As a Florida member of Sierra, I'm very glad the national finally stepped in to clean things up.

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

"flenviro" wrote:

"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

Mr. Steenblik answered it For What Its Worth.  Branding.  Sad, sad, sad Grist claims ignorance of branding.  Proving once and for all again, people are stupid.

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.  

For me it is more a general frustration at the willful ignorance and maybe a little defensive contempt in reaction for the anti-intellectual contempt I encounter from those regular folks who can't be bothered by pesky facts, and call me a hippie for being unwilling to poison my home with chemical crap. I swear the next person to call me a "tree-hugger" is getting a fat lip.