The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
This article in today's Wall Street Journal describes the Sierra Club's next target--natural gas:
...[O]ne of the most powerful environmental lobbies, the Sierra Club, is mounting a major campaign to kill the industry.... The big green lobbying machine has rolled out a new website that says "The natural gas industry is dirty, dangerous and running amok" and that "The closer we look at natural gas, the dirtier it appears; and the less of it we burn, the better off we will be." So the goal is to shut the industry down, not merely to impose higher safety standards.... The lobby helped to block new nuclear plants for more than 30 years, it has kept much of the U.S. off-limits to oil drilling, and its "Beyond Coal" campaign has all but shut down new coal plants. One of its priorities now will be to make shale gas drilling anathema within the Democratic Party.
The political irony is that not too long ago the Sierra Club and other greens portrayed natural gas as the good fossil fuel.... So why is the Sierra Club suddenly portraying natural gas as a villain? The answer surely is the industry's drilling success. The greens were happy to support natural gas as a "bridge fuel to the 21st century" when it cost $8 or more per million BTUs and seemed to be in limited domestic supply.
But now that the hydraulic fracturing and shale revolution has sent gas prices down to $2.50, the lobby fears natural gas will come to dominate U.S. energy production. At that price, the Sierra Club's Valhalla of wind, solar and biofuel power may never be competitive....
Now, look for a moment at that pie chart, which shows U.S. energy use by fuel type. The Sierra Club opposes oil (40%), coal (23%), natural gas (22%), nuclear (8%), and hydropower (3%). Yes, they even oppose hydro. From their website: "...[B]ecause of the effects of large dams on wildlife and watersheds, the Club does not support large-scale hydropower."
That leaves us with renewables (3%).
It is outrageous that an irresponsible and childish lobby, opposing 97% of our energy sources, has such a great influence on our energy policy. They might as well be advocating for greater use of unicorn tears as a fuel source.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
Kevin Walker
They might as well be advocating for greater use of unicorn tears as a fuel source. · · 9 minutes ago
Dear Sir,
As every one knows, unicorn tears are a non-sustainable source of energy, since each unicorn can only ever produce at most 500 liters of tears in a life time, and then only in response to mass deforestation or the killing of endangered species. The only renewable unicorn energy is the capturing of unicorn happiness radiation. This is done through solar panel like devices that capture the Warm Fuzzy particles radiating off Unicorns. These particles can generate a electric current if they strike the right materials such as organic fair trade silicon.
Thus while the Sierra Club endorse Unicorn power we oppose the unsustainable and reckless dependence on unicorn tears.
Aug '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
Valiuth, you had me in tears!
Jun '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
Each time the Sierra Club has the vapors, it's a sure sign that someone is doing something right.
Jun '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
I don't know how public they've been, but it would be so much fun to hear the screaming matches within the Sierra Club about how windmills are killing endangered birds and solar farms are destroying the last habitat of the Rareplanteus nausea.
Apr '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
What I think is the most hilarious thing about solar farms is that they use so much water. People don't seem to realize that the panels have to be kept clean or their efficiency plummets, and the regions where they are most effective (the South West) are incredibly dusty.
Jul '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
When the trucks stop running and the riots happen I wonder who will get the blame?
Apr '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
Why greedy oil companies of course...
May '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
The Sierra Club and their ilk will have credibility, if not persuasiveness, when they walk everywhere and eat all their food raw Until then, they are just loony background noise.
Mar '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
They are going to starve to death freezing in the dark.
That's OK with me, but they expect me to do it too.
Dec '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
It's just tag-team, folks. These people are playing nothing more than a game and the goal they are shooting for is socialism, period. Nothing else matters. So, the Audobon Society takes the lead when the issue is damage to birds, while the Sierra Club, WWF, and the Natural Resources Defense Council cover the Audobon Society, to keep pushing wind. They have only one common goal, explicitly stated to me, that of changing people's attitudes and lifestyles.
They know their ideas don't work, but that is unimportant to them because they do not care about their ideas working. They care about marketing and changing people's attitudes.
For those of you that have your nitroglycerin capsules to hand, please take a look at the person that is your current Secretary of Commerce.
Did you check? Do you get the picture, now?
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
They don't want you in cars; they want you in public transportation. They don't want you in houses in the suburbs; they want you in apartment blocks in dense parts of town. They don't want you to have a toasty warm house; they want you to wear a sweater. They don't want you to turn on the lights to illuminate the skyscrapers at night; they want the cold glass towers to go dark. They don't want you to fly; they want you to take the train. You know those things you like? Stop liking them. You know those things you want? Stop it. Now.
And what do we call a civilization that has sacrificed 97% of its energy sources and traded affluence for common discomfort? Why, sustainable, of course.
Mar '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
What the chart shows me is that we could give up on renewable energy with hardly any loss in power generation - and save the lives of thousands of birds munched to death by wind turbines, while restoring the landscape to it's pristine beauty.
Oh, and we could get the 3% back by a modest increase in Gas, of which we have enough under the ground for the next few hundred years.
Edited on May 31, 2012 at 2:17amMay '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
They are all "Watermelons": Green on the outside, but red on the inside.
May '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
They are Puritans without the morality; they are afraid that someone, somewhere may be enjoying life.
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
James Lileks: They don't want you in cars; they want you in public transportation. They don't want you in houses in the suburbs; they want you in apartment blocks in dense parts of town. They don't want you to have a toasty warm house; they want you to wear a sweater. They don't want you to turn on the lights to illuminate the skyscrapers at night; they want the cold glass towers to go dark. They don't want you to fly; they want you to take the train. You know those things you like? Stop liking them. You know those things you want? Stop it. Now.
25 minutes ago
In truth, James, they want us dead.
Jan '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
Doubleplusgood, that's what.
May '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
James Lileks: They don't want you in cars; they want you in public transportation. They don't want you in houses in the suburbs; they want you in apartment blocks in dense parts of town. They don't want you to have a toasty warm house; they want you to wear a sweater. They don't want you to turn on the lights to illuminate the skyscrapers at night; they want the cold glass towers to go dark. They don't want you to fly; they want you to take the train. You know those things you like? Stop liking them. You know those things you want? Stop it. Now.
And what do we call a civilization that has sacrificed 97% of its energy sources and traded affluence for common discomfort? Why, sustainable, of course. · 27 minutes ago
You forgot they don't want so many of us inhabiting the planet and using up precious carbon. Especially us evil conservative types who insist on enjoying the pleasures of modernity.
Apr '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
It is not energy they despise, it's modernity and all its benefits they despise. Freedom, longevity, good health, and prosperity are all vices in the green religion.
Aug '10
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
This reinforces my standard accusation: the environmentalists do not want to "save the earth". They want to roll back civilization itself.
Mar '11
Re: The Sierra Club's Latest Foot-Stomping Tantrum
The Dark Ages were sustainable. We could have gone on like that indefinitely. Of course, there was a lot of famine and disease, and the only rights you had were the rights you could defend.