WHAT "GREEN" MEANS AT THE SIERRA CLUB
|
|
| Also listed in: Interfaith Peace Coalition | Licking County Pro-Active Citizens (www.licopac.org) | Ohio 12th Congressional District |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Categories: Action Alerts, Environment and Conservation, Ranting and Venting, Front Page
Categories: Action Alerts, Environment and Conservation, Ranting and Venting, Front Page
I know this is UNITY WEEK but before we start singing in sweet harmony, let me shout out more profane lyrics at the boneheads over at the Sierra Club.
When Hummingbird and I received our newest issue of the Central Ohio Sierran, I noticed that among the 16 candidates (all Democrats) endorsed for local offices, there was no mention of Democratic 12th District Congressional Candidate David Robinson.
Now I'm used to the news media ignoring the 12th District race but the Sierra Club? How shortsighted can these people be? Are we really depending on groups like this to save the Earth?
For David Robinson is not just a Democrat. He's a volunteer lecturer for Al Gore's Climate Project Initiative, traveling about the country on his own dime making presentations on climate change and the need for a sensible energy policy. (see www.robinson2008.com )
So why would the Sierra Club endorse Franklin County's other Democratic congressional candidate, Mary Jo Kilroy, as "an environmental champion," but not Robinson?
Melanie Braitwaite, political chairwoman for the Central Ohio Sierra Club, said screening panels at the local and state level DID recommend endorsing Robinson but the national Sierra Club overturned those decisions. "It's pending at national," she explained. "They determined he (Robinson) wasn't viable enough -- in other words, he didn't have quite enough money."
In fact, Robinson is running from behind in the dollar race, with $80,254 in contributions through June 30 as compared to $1.4 million raised largely from banks, insurance companies and realtors by the district incumbent, Republican Pat Tiberi.
So how can Robinson raise money from progressives to oust a well-heeled incumbent like Tiberi unless he gets endorsements from progressive organizations like the Sierra Club. (The club, in fact, leads off its endorsements by urging members "to consider volunteering for or making campaign contributions to these excellent candidates.")
So I asked Braithwaite, if the criteria for an endorsement is "Show Me the Money" rather than a strong environmental record, why wouldn't the Sierra Club just endorse Tiberi?
"Tiberi is viable," she replied, "but he's awful on the environment."
Guess you can't have everything.
This isn't the first time Tiberi has benefitted from a clueless environmental group.
Last year, for example, LICOPAC.ORG reported:
.............................
"Congressman Pat Tiberi (R-12th) got a pat on the back today from an environmental group, when maybe it should have been a smack across the side of the head.
"Dave Hobson, Deborah Pryce and Pat Tiberi GET IT" says the display ad on A9 of today's Dispatch, a big campaign plug sponsored by Environmental Defense (formerly the Environmental Defense Fund) and Ohio's Tomorrow, a business-oriented group lobbying for global-friendly reductions in carbon emissions.
"Representative Hobson, Pryce and Tiberi deserve our thanks for their common sense vote recognizing the real threat of climate change," says the ad text. "Now it's time for a practical solution that will strengthen America's energy security, boost our economy and fight climate change. Let's cap carbon pollution, and let America's entrepreneurs solve this global challenge."
According to the ad, the three Columbus-area Republicans stood up for the climate by voting NO on an amendment offered by Texas Republican Joe Barton to the Interior Department appropriation resolution last month. Barton's amendment would have REMOVED this earth-friendly language (Section 501) from the legislation so, by voting NO to Barton, Hobson, Pryce and Tiberi were agreeing that:
"It is the sense of the Congress that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions."
Thus the ad, complete with a picture of the planet in a frying pan, portrayed the three GOP incumbents as warriors against warming at a time when such environmental credentials are important to winning votes and staying in office.
Just one problem here.
Once the Barton amendment was defeated, 153-274, Pryce and Hobson went on to vote in favor of the Interior Department appropriation, including the section 501 Congressional commitment to combat global warming. Tiberi, however, voted NO on the main bill, as he has on practically every funding resolution (except defense).
The measure, approved 272-155 anyway by the House, grants $27.6 billion over the next year to fund not only for the Interior Department but the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Forest Service and the Indian Health Service.
Tiberi, on his web site, said his vote reflected his opposition to excessive spending by the Democratic Congress. He didn't mention Section 501, the carbon clean-up commitment.
"Today Democrats passed yet another spending bill that exceeded the President's Budget and sends spending soaring over current levels," he stated. "We're already $8 billion above the President's spending levels and there's no end in sight."
So to summarize, Congressman Tiberi voted in favor of a Congressional commitment to take action against global warming, but then voted against the parent budget resolution which carried this commitment as well as against funding for such vital environmental agencies such as Interior, EPA and the U.S. Forest Service.
Apparently, Environmental Defense and Ohio's Tomorrow didn't hang around for the final vote on the bill.
Atta-A-Boy, Pat"
................................
So, to bring this story up to date, evidentally at least two major national environmental groups are happy to retain Pat Tiberi who among other things also opposed a requirement that utilities produce 15 percent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewables (August 07), opposed stronger environmental controls on mining (late 2007) and voted to support President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. (Nov. 2007).
I tried to get the club's national perspective today but was told all their legislative staff were in Denver at the convention and could not be reached.
If you think the Sierra Club has its head up its ... , you might want to contact melbraithwaite@aol.com or the club's national legislative office at 202-547-1141.
Or if you're a Tiberi supporter, send a nice check to the Sierra Club today. They've earned it.
When Hummingbird and I received our newest issue of the Central Ohio Sierran, I noticed that among the 16 candidates (all Democrats) endorsed for local offices, there was no mention of Democratic 12th District Congressional Candidate David Robinson.
Now I'm used to the news media ignoring the 12th District race but the Sierra Club? How shortsighted can these people be? Are we really depending on groups like this to save the Earth?
For David Robinson is not just a Democrat. He's a volunteer lecturer for Al Gore's Climate Project Initiative, traveling about the country on his own dime making presentations on climate change and the need for a sensible energy policy. (see www.robinson2008.com )
So why would the Sierra Club endorse Franklin County's other Democratic congressional candidate, Mary Jo Kilroy, as "an environmental champion," but not Robinson?
Melanie Braitwaite, political chairwoman for the Central Ohio Sierra Club, said screening panels at the local and state level DID recommend endorsing Robinson but the national Sierra Club overturned those decisions. "It's pending at national," she explained. "They determined he (Robinson) wasn't viable enough -- in other words, he didn't have quite enough money."
In fact, Robinson is running from behind in the dollar race, with $80,254 in contributions through June 30 as compared to $1.4 million raised largely from banks, insurance companies and realtors by the district incumbent, Republican Pat Tiberi.
So how can Robinson raise money from progressives to oust a well-heeled incumbent like Tiberi unless he gets endorsements from progressive organizations like the Sierra Club. (The club, in fact, leads off its endorsements by urging members "to consider volunteering for or making campaign contributions to these excellent candidates.")
So I asked Braithwaite, if the criteria for an endorsement is "Show Me the Money" rather than a strong environmental record, why wouldn't the Sierra Club just endorse Tiberi?
"Tiberi is viable," she replied, "but he's awful on the environment."
Guess you can't have everything.
This isn't the first time Tiberi has benefitted from a clueless environmental group.
Last year, for example, LICOPAC.ORG reported:
.............................
"Congressman Pat Tiberi (R-12th) got a pat on the back today from an environmental group, when maybe it should have been a smack across the side of the head.
"Dave Hobson, Deborah Pryce and Pat Tiberi GET IT" says the display ad on A9 of today's Dispatch, a big campaign plug sponsored by Environmental Defense (formerly the Environmental Defense Fund) and Ohio's Tomorrow, a business-oriented group lobbying for global-friendly reductions in carbon emissions.
"Representative Hobson, Pryce and Tiberi deserve our thanks for their common sense vote recognizing the real threat of climate change," says the ad text. "Now it's time for a practical solution that will strengthen America's energy security, boost our economy and fight climate change. Let's cap carbon pollution, and let America's entrepreneurs solve this global challenge."
According to the ad, the three Columbus-area Republicans stood up for the climate by voting NO on an amendment offered by Texas Republican Joe Barton to the Interior Department appropriation resolution last month. Barton's amendment would have REMOVED this earth-friendly language (Section 501) from the legislation so, by voting NO to Barton, Hobson, Pryce and Tiberi were agreeing that:
"It is the sense of the Congress that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions."
Thus the ad, complete with a picture of the planet in a frying pan, portrayed the three GOP incumbents as warriors against warming at a time when such environmental credentials are important to winning votes and staying in office.
Just one problem here.
Once the Barton amendment was defeated, 153-274, Pryce and Hobson went on to vote in favor of the Interior Department appropriation, including the section 501 Congressional commitment to combat global warming. Tiberi, however, voted NO on the main bill, as he has on practically every funding resolution (except defense).
The measure, approved 272-155 anyway by the House, grants $27.6 billion over the next year to fund not only for the Interior Department but the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Forest Service and the Indian Health Service.
Tiberi, on his web site, said his vote reflected his opposition to excessive spending by the Democratic Congress. He didn't mention Section 501, the carbon clean-up commitment.
"Today Democrats passed yet another spending bill that exceeded the President's Budget and sends spending soaring over current levels," he stated. "We're already $8 billion above the President's spending levels and there's no end in sight."
So to summarize, Congressman Tiberi voted in favor of a Congressional commitment to take action against global warming, but then voted against the parent budget resolution which carried this commitment as well as against funding for such vital environmental agencies such as Interior, EPA and the U.S. Forest Service.
Apparently, Environmental Defense and Ohio's Tomorrow didn't hang around for the final vote on the bill.
Atta-A-Boy, Pat"
................................
So, to bring this story up to date, evidentally at least two major national environmental groups are happy to retain Pat Tiberi who among other things also opposed a requirement that utilities produce 15 percent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewables (August 07), opposed stronger environmental controls on mining (late 2007) and voted to support President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. (Nov. 2007).
I tried to get the club's national perspective today but was told all their legislative staff were in Denver at the convention and could not be reached.
If you think the Sierra Club has its head up its ... , you might want to contact melbraithwaite@aol.com or the club's national legislative office at 202-547-1141.
Or if you're a Tiberi supporter, send a nice check to the Sierra Club today. They've earned it.
Comments are closed for this post.
I recently watched An Inconvenient Truth (4 copies available at UAPL) for the first time. I think, jeez, we have to do something about global warming, but what can I do? At the very least, I pledge to not reproduce and die in the next 50 years. (Not much of a sacrifice, I know.)