From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Anti-Immigrant Coup at Sierra Club?
The most powerful and venerable environmental organisation in the United States is facing what is being described as its greatest crisis in its 112-year history. There are claims that anti-immigration groups are planning to take over the Sierra Club, in a battle that has reopened the debate on the priorities for environmentalists worldwide.
Anti-migrants plan coup at 100-year-old green group
'Extreme concern' for future of US Sierra Club
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Friday January 23, 2004
The Guardian
The most powerful and venerable environmental organisation in the United States is facing what is being described as its greatest crisis in its 112-year history. There are claims that anti-immigration groups are planning to take over the Sierra Club, in a battle that has reopened the debate on the priorities for environmentalists worldwide.
The Sierra Club was founded in the 19th century by John Muir, a Scottish immigrant regarded as the father of American environmentalism. It now has 700,000 members and is the best known of all environmental groups in the country. Because of its vast membership and its history, its stance on major political issues carries much clout.
In March, elections are due for five seats on the club's 15-strong board. Supporters of anti-immigration and anti-population growth stances are running for election and hoping to establish a majority on the board, partly in order to formulate an anti-immigration policy for the club.
The environmental rationale behind the move is that the ecological infrastructure of the US will be irreparably damaged if millions more people arrive.
Last week, 12 past presidents in a joint letter expressed their "extreme concern" for the "continuing viability" of the Sierra Club if this group of candidates is elected.
"It would be the end of John Muir's vision as we know it," said Lawrence Downing, a past club president and spokesman for Groundswell, a group formed within the club to fight what they describe as a takeover. "It would turn the club into the hands of outsiders who have their own personal agenda."
Some members claim that far-right groups are now urging people to join to take control of the club. The civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Centre has joined the battle and is running a candidate of its own to highlight the issue.
"Without a doubt, the Sierra Club is the subject of a hostile takeover attempt by forces allied with a variety of rightwing extremists," said the centre in a letter to club members. "By taking advantage of the welcoming grassroots democratic structure of the Sierra Club, they hope to use the credibility of the club as a cover to advance their own extremist views. We think members should be alert to this."
The debate has intensified, as people who join the club before the end of the month will be able to vote in March. In past years, voter turnout has been low, with only 8% of members voting last time.
The anti-immigration issue has been summed up by one internal group, Sierrans for US Population Stabilisation, which put forward its policy to members under the heading of "why we need a comprehensive US population policy". The position as stated when the matter was first debated in the club in the 1990s was that "ignoring the 60% of US population growth caused by current legal immigration is like trying to heat a house with the windows open". The group suggested that the club's desire to avoid the issue was based on "globalism over nationalism" and "political correctness over environmental correctness".
The so-called outsiders claim that their views and intentions have been distorted and misinterpreted. Paul Watson, a co-founder of Greenpeace who is now with the radical environmental group Sea Shepherd, is already on the Sierra Club's board of directors and supports others who back immigration control. He is accused by Groundswell of planning to take over the club and change its direction, with a more militant approach on animal rights issues also.
"People are trying to paint us as bigoted", said Mr Watson, "but I am not anti-immigrant - I'm an immigrant. I'm Canadian." He said that at the present rate of growth, the US population would reach 1 billion by the end of the century, and that that was unsustainable.
Referring to suggestions that some far-right groups were now joining the club to influence the vote, he said: "There is nothing we can do about it; we can't stop the Ku Klux Klan from joining if they want." He said that the candidates he supported were respected figures, such as a former governor of Colorado, who deserved to be elected. He added that the Southern Poverty Law Centre was being hypocritical by raising the race issue, not least because one of the candidates was black.
Ben Zuckerman, professor of astro-physics at UCLA and another board member, agreed with Mr Watson. "I regard this as an internal power struggle," he said. "The old guard have been running the Sierra Club for as long as I can remember." He said that the US had not had a president committed to the environment since Jimmy Carter, and it was time for the club to play a bigger role politically. "We have to do better than we have been doing."
Professor Zuckerman said immigration was only one of many matters that needed to be addressed. "It's a much bigger problem." He abelieved that "rapid population growth is the number one issue for the US, and possibly the world."
Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey and The Eagle's Shadow and a commentator on environmental affairs, said the way the battle was perceived was of great importance to the environmental movement. "If a bunch of extremist political groups that espouse these kind of ideologies are able to take over, that is a black mark on American environmentalism, because the Sierra Club is one of the oldest and most respected environmental organisations in the country."
Mr Hertsgaard added that one of the problems for the club was that an anti-immigration stance would feed into some people's perceptions of environmentalism as having fascist leanings, which was very far from the reality of mainstream opinion within the club.
The issue has split the club before, in the late 1990s, when the then club president, Adam Werbach, stated that "immigration is not an environmental issue". This time, however, the stakes are much higher and the result will be watched closely by environmentalists in the US and abroad.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
'Extreme concern' for future of US Sierra Club
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Friday January 23, 2004
The Guardian
The most powerful and venerable environmental organisation in the United States is facing what is being described as its greatest crisis in its 112-year history. There are claims that anti-immigration groups are planning to take over the Sierra Club, in a battle that has reopened the debate on the priorities for environmentalists worldwide.
The Sierra Club was founded in the 19th century by John Muir, a Scottish immigrant regarded as the father of American environmentalism. It now has 700,000 members and is the best known of all environmental groups in the country. Because of its vast membership and its history, its stance on major political issues carries much clout.
In March, elections are due for five seats on the club's 15-strong board. Supporters of anti-immigration and anti-population growth stances are running for election and hoping to establish a majority on the board, partly in order to formulate an anti-immigration policy for the club.
The environmental rationale behind the move is that the ecological infrastructure of the US will be irreparably damaged if millions more people arrive.
Last week, 12 past presidents in a joint letter expressed their "extreme concern" for the "continuing viability" of the Sierra Club if this group of candidates is elected.
"It would be the end of John Muir's vision as we know it," said Lawrence Downing, a past club president and spokesman for Groundswell, a group formed within the club to fight what they describe as a takeover. "It would turn the club into the hands of outsiders who have their own personal agenda."
Some members claim that far-right groups are now urging people to join to take control of the club. The civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Centre has joined the battle and is running a candidate of its own to highlight the issue.
"Without a doubt, the Sierra Club is the subject of a hostile takeover attempt by forces allied with a variety of rightwing extremists," said the centre in a letter to club members. "By taking advantage of the welcoming grassroots democratic structure of the Sierra Club, they hope to use the credibility of the club as a cover to advance their own extremist views. We think members should be alert to this."
The debate has intensified, as people who join the club before the end of the month will be able to vote in March. In past years, voter turnout has been low, with only 8% of members voting last time.
The anti-immigration issue has been summed up by one internal group, Sierrans for US Population Stabilisation, which put forward its policy to members under the heading of "why we need a comprehensive US population policy". The position as stated when the matter was first debated in the club in the 1990s was that "ignoring the 60% of US population growth caused by current legal immigration is like trying to heat a house with the windows open". The group suggested that the club's desire to avoid the issue was based on "globalism over nationalism" and "political correctness over environmental correctness".
The so-called outsiders claim that their views and intentions have been distorted and misinterpreted. Paul Watson, a co-founder of Greenpeace who is now with the radical environmental group Sea Shepherd, is already on the Sierra Club's board of directors and supports others who back immigration control. He is accused by Groundswell of planning to take over the club and change its direction, with a more militant approach on animal rights issues also.
"People are trying to paint us as bigoted", said Mr Watson, "but I am not anti-immigrant - I'm an immigrant. I'm Canadian." He said that at the present rate of growth, the US population would reach 1 billion by the end of the century, and that that was unsustainable.
Referring to suggestions that some far-right groups were now joining the club to influence the vote, he said: "There is nothing we can do about it; we can't stop the Ku Klux Klan from joining if they want." He said that the candidates he supported were respected figures, such as a former governor of Colorado, who deserved to be elected. He added that the Southern Poverty Law Centre was being hypocritical by raising the race issue, not least because one of the candidates was black.
Ben Zuckerman, professor of astro-physics at UCLA and another board member, agreed with Mr Watson. "I regard this as an internal power struggle," he said. "The old guard have been running the Sierra Club for as long as I can remember." He said that the US had not had a president committed to the environment since Jimmy Carter, and it was time for the club to play a bigger role politically. "We have to do better than we have been doing."
Professor Zuckerman said immigration was only one of many matters that needed to be addressed. "It's a much bigger problem." He abelieved that "rapid population growth is the number one issue for the US, and possibly the world."
Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey and The Eagle's Shadow and a commentator on environmental affairs, said the way the battle was perceived was of great importance to the environmental movement. "If a bunch of extremist political groups that espouse these kind of ideologies are able to take over, that is a black mark on American environmentalism, because the Sierra Club is one of the oldest and most respected environmental organisations in the country."
Mr Hertsgaard added that one of the problems for the club was that an anti-immigration stance would feed into some people's perceptions of environmentalism as having fascist leanings, which was very far from the reality of mainstream opinion within the club.
The issue has split the club before, in the late 1990s, when the then club president, Adam Werbach, stated that "immigration is not an environmental issue". This time, however, the stakes are much higher and the result will be watched closely by environmentalists in the US and abroad.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
For more information:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
The side which believes that environmental problems cannot be solved until we find a way to (hopefully gracefully) reduce our numbers is of course opposed to increase of numbers from immigration as well as form too many births. Saying that they are "anti-immigration" is an attempt to disguise that, to pretend that they are JUST opposed to more humans if these are of different races and ethnicities. THAT'S A LIE -- or at best a deception. The reality is that these are BOTH problems (births and immigration) but at least the former is at the present time else of a problem than the latter.
The side which opposes dealing with "population issues" in any way except ideological platitudes HONESTLY believes that population is not a problem. That if only we humans solved our social justice issues somehow we would naturally fall into ecological balance with he rest of Nature regardless of our numbers. They say things such as "always enough for need; never enough for greed" as if that made it true -- true whether there were 6 billion humans, 16 billion, 60 billion, or 600 billion. The conflict within Sierra would go a whole lot better is THESE people would express their beliefs about "numbers" rather than chant mantras. But I guess you can't deal rationally with people's religions (and sorry, but this is ideological faith raised to the level of religious faith).
LOOK -- I'm one of the people who REJOINED Sierra a decade ago (after a LONG absense) because this seems to me an issue worth fighting for and I wanted a say. I am willing to state my belief here loud and clear ---
Regardless of our solving the problems caused by social injustice (and there are many) we are NOT going to be able to solve our environmental problems with a worldwide human population of 6 billion. My guestimate? Something under 2 billion for long term sustainability, and this is not a choice -- or rather our choice is just HOW, not IF, because as soon as the fossile resources have been exhausted, if we haven't managed to reduce our numbers gracefully we're going to crash. It will be INVOLUNTARY.
BUT (and this is a very big but) I am perfectly willing to look at "facts and figures" from the opposing side. I'd LIKE to believe that there was some way to manage with our current numbers. Not ideological platitudes and mantras; facts, estimates of sustainable production and equitable consumption. Not "trust us, as long as everything is just, there will be a way". Loaves and fishes.