His writings greatly influenced the environmental movement. But in recent years, there has been a growing debate about his influence and relevance. Others have noted that many of the landmark sites Muir saved were stolen from indigenous people, often by force.
Before Muir arrived in Yosemite, it was home to native Californians who died in large number s from disease and slaughter when Europeans arrived and pushed them out. The Sierra Club outlined plans to make the group better reflect the diversity of America today.
But later in life, he came to admire their stewardship of the land and expressed concern about the cruel ways they were treated. State officials removed a statue of Christopher Columbus from the Capitol rotunda in Sacramento this summer.
A statue of Serra was pulled down on Olvera Street in Los Angeles, with protesters saying the founder of the Spanish mission system enslaved and abused Indians. The L. Times holiday gift guide. Newsom returns to public eye after sudden absence sparked social media speculation. Fracking is madness, a sign of a society gone completely insane and bent on self-destruction. The only thing I would recommend adding to your article, is a link to where we can donate to the brave heroes and heroines who are working so hard to stop the madness.
Erik thats awesome! Like Minds will Conquer! Peace, Bridgette. But oh, the irony! The natural gas industry has done far more to make the environment a safer place than even the Sierra Club has. Close to 1, old coal fired plants, pumping our BILLIONS of tons of noxious pollutants into the air and water, causing thousands of deaths and millions of illnesses, have been shuttered as a direct result of clean burning natural gas.
The author would easily be able to smell the improvement, had she not already cut off her nose to spite her face. Thank you Sandra for all that you do. Your insight and truth telling is a beacon for many of us living in gasland.
The Sierra Club and its leadership has blood on its hands. Yes natural gas burns more cleanly than coal. However extraction via fracking is not a clean process. By your own logic, then nuclear power is superior to fracking, and we need to replace your operations with reactors.
Because nuclear power produces less waste than your clean burning natural gas. Self-aggrandizing, Mr. While you, meanwhile, want to risk our beautiful environment up here, in order to sell gas to other countries because we have a surplus.
And thanks, Ms. Steingraber, for your principled stance. Add this to your list of complaints. Bank of America finances Mountaintop Removal. Tell that to the people whose lives have been ruined by fracking near their homes. Tell them that to their face- I dare you. Then you have no guts at all compared to this writer whom you chidingly mock.
If you cared the least bit for the environment, your interests in profits er.. Go ahead- talk to the people you have poisoned so far, convince them of your sincere concern for the environment, have a glass of flammable water from their tap with them on camera and prove the safety of what you are doing to the world. How much do you value your life? I want to know who at the top sold us out. It might as well have been 30 Sheckels of silver.
Sara, Sorry you feel that way. However, I feel with this letter you are also alienating all the volunteers activists and staff of the Sierra Club working on this issue. You should know as you were there at that rally last November. In addition, what about the efforts in MD where the club has taken the lead role in stopping the Maryland LNG export terminal? What about the efforts of Sierra club activist nationally to push for the Frac Act in Congress?
Lobby to stop the natural gas act? Supply pages of comments and expert testimony to the EPA concerning air emissions from drilling? Is all that moot? Sadly, my wife passed away on Jan 3rd. I take offence that you feel the sierra club has not done enough on this issue.
I feel by saying such, you are discrediting my work on this issue as well as the other activists and volunteers in the club. He was wearing the t-shirt made by Sierra Club activists who you now say are not being vocal enough. I am sorry that you feel the Sierra Club has not done enough, or spoken louder, but maybe you have not been looking in the correct locations.
Sometimes you have to look behind the curtain and see who is operating the sound and lights for the people on the stage, such as you. You may feel the club has not been vocal enough of the issue, but sometimes-real progress happens behind the scenes and the lights.
Sadly, I am returning my signed copy of Raising Elijah as by saying you are done with the Sierra Club I have to say I am done with you, as I take great personal offence to your letter. Since , when Mr. Moreso, the field organizing staff and legal counsel for contaminated and fracking impacted residents has been lacking. He messaged me tonight to say that his legal team will be looking into the family eviction in Jersey Shore, PA for a water withdrawal facility.
The truth is, Sierra Club has a reservoir of cash, staff time, expertise, media contacts, and political muscle that is not trickling down to those who need it most, at least not at the rate it should be.
It no longer was an obscure federal commission working behind the curtain. A week and a half prior, I personally called together folks on a conference call to discuss a protest of the hearing. No one from Sierra Club was on the phone. On the call, we decided to have three call in days to two governors of MD and NY plus the White House, we decided to have a rally at the Capitol following the vote, we scheduled a non-violence training that I gave the night before with a woman whose family farm is leased, we discussed making a website, and we discussed possible ways to disrupt the meeting by chanting.
No one from the Club showed up in Harrisburg, not even the paid staffers. We had 25 people. Michael Brune told me tonight he will have his legal team look into it. I hope he means that. I really do. Again, I really appreciate your work David and all of the Sierra Club members who have fought at my side in this lopsided war.
With a nationwide movement, we have blocked over new plants from being built and have pushed another dirty plants into retirement. Like most of the environmental community, however, we had also become aware that the threats gas poses are much more severe than we originally thought. We do not and will not accept such funding. We should never have taken this money. Our chapters are aggressively fighting this rogue industry anywhere the drillers are attempting to move in.
Sierra Club volunteers have lent their voices and protest signs to hearings in every fracking state from Texas to Colorado to West Virginia to California to New York. Sierra Club lobbyists and activists are working on the federal level to close the loopholes that the industry exploits, and to make sure safeguards are put in place where drilling is already taking place. When fracking contaminated the wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania, we were there with others to supply clean drinking water.
Thank you Sandra, my sentiments exactly. I was listening to the Spring peepers last night, two weeks earlier than usual by the way, and thinking how odd it feels to be surrounded by frogs and gas leases both. And poor Mr. Robert Kennedy Jr. I suspect that this points to a deep and inherent problem with national environmental organizations and the figures who lead them. They end up behaving just like the corporations they are supposed to be fighting, in much the same way that regulatory agencies end up in bed with the industries they are supposed to regulate.
ExxonMobil is not going to solve our energy problem, and the Sierra Club is not going to solve our environmental mess. If not by them than by the public actions taken however painful it maybe. What comes through this whole discussion for me is the inescapable fact and blessing of complexity, and the importance of distinguishing between some specific actions of a person or organization and the totality of that person or organization.
Specific actions may need to be uncompromisingly detested and opposed, but we should be careful not to identify such actions with the totality of the person, much less the totality of an organization comprised of many persons. Facing a tyrannical force that succeeds through divide and conquer, we only strengthen the tyranny if we dismiss good-hearted potential allies by assuming them to be monolithic and unchangeable, and and as a consequence we remain divided and conquered.
I know it is the only organization in which I can have an influence and I believe it is because of members like me that the organization is changing for the better. Other organization do what their founder or commander in chief want to do without being accountable to their membership except to the extent that they can draw in new members by their actions.
But the Sierra Club is different. Our past director, Carl Pope, did that. But the representative nature of this organization makes it not only venerable but vulnerable as well. The members of the board are elected by the members at large, many of whom could represent anti-environmental points of view. In fact, many club members can be and I know some who are pro fossil fuel. Unless the members who are passionate about ending fracking as Sandra, Lisa and me are remain with the club, the club will not be able to stop the practice.
And I would like to point out that while it took some extraordinary efforts to find out where the funding for the club came from, it is no less difficult to find out where the funding comes from for other organizations, some of which have greatly surprised and disappointed me. At least with the Sierra Club, changes took place though they were slow to happen.
The national energy policy was altered allowing us more latitude in taking anti-fracking actions, our director Pope was replaced by Micheal Brune who seems to be more in tune with our needs , and our board of directors is beginning to include more anti-fracking members as we, the members at large, learn more about the candidates and fracking and vote accordingly.
Those who oppose the use of fossil fuels MUST stay connected if there is to be a strong national voice against the use of fossil fuels. We stand as supporters of 1 energy efficiency, 2 energy conservation and 3 non-fossil fuel energy production.
We know these create more, better and more sustainable jobs than does the fossil fuel industry. We also know it will result in a lower cost to everyone because of lower health costs, lower taxes to pay for damages done, sufficient healthy foods, a healthier life, and more. But please remember that Michael he is not the one who accepted the money.
That was done under Carl Pope. Finally, actions taken by local groups occur because there are group members willing and able to take those actions and others in that group or local groups willing to stand up and be counted.
This is even more of a reason for people who are passionate about protecting the environment to stay with the club, not leave it. Sierra Club is the only organization I have found that can be driven by its members. We can make a difference and so I will not give up the fight or my membership. What is truly obnoxious is Mr. But to more important items, such as Mr. The problem here is that no one is taking issue with the good work the Sierra Club does. At issue is the lack of explanation, accountability, and transparency for this breech in judgement.
Orion, thank you for being a place for this critical dialogue! Steingraber, thank you for voicing your outrage. Brune, thank you for your explanation and invitation. Steingraber, Mr. Meiser, Alex L, and Mr. Thank you. The fact is that the Sierra Club not only took money from gas drillers, they rightfully promoted natural gas as an environmental boon.
Same as RFK Jr and a whole host of other environmental groups. It was not until it became chic to be a fractivist that these folks changed their tune.
Over 4, shale wells have now been drilled in PA. Even with thousands of environmentalists and the media circling like starved buzzards waiting for an issue to pop up, there has been hardly any issues with groundwater contamination, and NO issues that could not be remedied by the installation of a simple water filter, paid for by the gas companies. When an accident happens it is a minor inconvenience, not an apocalypse. If you are for banning natural gas drilling, you are promoting coal.
And they also need to acknowledge that renewables like wind and solar carry a VERY steep environmental cost as well have you SEEN a rare earth metals mine? An eloquent and highly appropriate repudiation of the Sierra Club, one of the most conspicuously hollow of the empty shells that remain from the long dead environmental movement of the s. No higher honor exists than the honor Sandra Steingraber has brought upon herself and her community through this public statement of her unflinching respect for the truth.
You directly benefit from gas drilling too. Everyone does. Whether you like it or not. Lower energy prices, infinitely cleaner air and water, jobs, national security… I could go on an on. Alex, There is no differentiating between the club volunteers and paid staff, the Sierra Club is one entity.
Therefore, any criticism of the one is a criticism of all. First, you and the individuals who discussed the actions at the SRBC meeting had indicated the use of illegal activity. The Sierra Club does not advocate or will not support any illegal activity, ever!
You were notified that this was the specific reason as I was on the email. Second the club may not have been at your meetings and such again see above I say again as in my original letter to look behind the curtain at the people operating the equipment. We are pressuring the governors of MD and NY to stop rubberstamping the water withdrawal permits. The SRBC is not going to change their actions immediately, and this is going to take a long-term approach, which is how the club is working on this issue, to change the attitudes of the SRBC and the governors of NY and MD.
As for your comment regarding the support of natural gas as a bridge fuel, as with all science as more data is gathered and additional information is obtained theories change. As Sandra can attest, the more data gathered the better we understand how systems work. First off, the club is not a public legal assistance program, I am sorry that people have the perception that club has an army of lawyers, but that is where the club becomes a victim of its own success.
As you said, the problem with your statement is that your information is anecdotal. For your statement regarding what the club should be focusing upon, I again go back to my analogy of look behind the curtain. The Sierra Club was first in line to deliver water to the residents of Dimock when Cabbot Oil and gas shut the deliveries.
Who do you think helped organize the rallies in Harrisburg, Trenton, Ohio, Michigan and other states? In addition, who do you provided the expert testimony to the EPA for Proposed Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas Production, as well as rally citizens to come give testimony at these hearings?
One should always check their facts before making inaccurate statements. As I have pointed out on other locations and in other publications, the Sierra Club has revised its hydraulic fracturing policy just recently. Many people still want the Sierra Club to call for a ban on the process of Hydrofracking and say that the policy is not good enough. As of this date, no one has provided a single instance. Therefore, I pose the same challenge to others reading this comment. It is easy to sit back and criticize others from afar and to point out flaws, especially you are naive on what those actions are being performed by others.
We are addicts. Enter Mr. He knows we are jonesing for fix, and he has the goods—from his new marcellus meth lab, cheap powerful stuff. Which would be fine and Mr. Knapp could have his thirty pieces of silver, and we would likewise deserve our fate for having bought into something so foolish in the first place, if what he and we were mortgaging was merely our own lives; but his feckless greed will doom our children and theirs for ever after.
The billion dollar propaganda and lobbying effort of the fossil fuel industry is precisely why we have no national conversation about energy waste or climate or extinction. High time for rehab—the hard painful work it takes to be honest, independent, and resilient.
When our son died from two sips of creek water in , we became aware of a danger and tried to get help from any environmental group. Thank you Jane, for saying more about the Sierra Club as an organization and how it works. Earthspeak, I am terribly sorry about your son. And I am grateful for all of your dedication, persistence and activism….
Thank you for publishing this, what thousands speak of every day. Sierra Club is a gas promoting entity, regardless of how many good people still strive there, leaving one by one, like me, who stopped giving, in the three figure range every year, a few years ago.
THat said it all. Ban fracking, not a moratorium. Sad, but so it goes. And there is no dearth of defenders, since that is their job! Thank you Jane F. By advocating a fracking moratorium, Michael Brune and the Board are acknowledging the seriousness of this dangerous practice. And, yes, it would be good if they took an even stronger stance against fracking. The Club remains one of our most important voices in the current anti-environmental, anti-scientific climate and needs our in-put and support now more than ever.
I do think, and my knowledge on this issue is pretty limited, that fracking is probably not a good idea. However, if we are to become an energy independent country, we need to start producing some of our own energy and quit relying on the middle east. BUT, what we need is some solutions with no blame. Anybody have any suggestions here?
This was a fraud upon its members, a fraud upon government agencies, a fraud upon the public. And I note that the new ED of Sierra Club has made no promise to open the files on the donations, open the files on the correspondence with their cash sources nor promise not to take money from ANY industry which may profit from its positions. So, please answer me these questions: What other industries have juiced Sierra Club? This is not a new story. Their latest hook-ups include shilling for the nuclear power industry and BP.
Once the needle goes in, they have to keep up the habit. Still no takers on this the Sierra Club has revised its hydraulic fracturing policy just recently. One hopes that, since Mr. Brune was a principal adviser, he understands that top-down funding of the environmental movement is no longer effective assuming it ever was.
Palast above. Read the report, folks, or at least the executive summary. I am not an expert in this area, but that would be a good place to start. You can Google him to learn more about his work. Greg, thank you for stating so clearly what Sierra Club members might start demanding from their leadership: 1 a clear policy re open information on all sources of donations as well as communications with donors, and 2 a clear policy re refusing all income that can create a conflict of interest.
Makes sense to me…. I assume you are right about that… and, I would probably still belong to the people who are advocating for a complete ban, as the very idea of injecting toxic chemicals into the earth does not make any sense to me. As a scientist, you may be interested in the Natural Step sustainability principles which were developed through scientific consensus… they seem to spell out pretty clearly, the general direction in which we need to be moving, as a society.
Of course, it will take a lot of creativity, initiative, and collaboration to do so! SHAME on him for attempting to cloak himself in the good works of the members. Brune should focus on the substance of what Sandra S. Is it really too much to expect that Mr. Brune simply acknowledge that he was disingenuous with the members, and promise that that will NEVER happen again? If he can not bring himself to acknowledge PUBLICLY that what he did was wrong, perhaps it is time to start a nationwide petition demanding his resignation.
His actions and his excuses weigh heavily on the shoulders of those whom he walked over to get to the top — those Tireless and True Anti-Shale Activists. Shame on you Mr. And accolades to Sandra Steingraber for telling it like it is with no holds barred!! And they are still not there now with regard to the enormous threat methane natural gas poses as a greenhouse gas more than times more potent than CO2. Mr Brune does not mention specifically why Sierra is down on fracking, and that makes me sad and wary.
PA doesnt permit private water wells and NY has done so only since The clever wording in the proposed model regulations would leave millions of NY and PA residents out in the fractured cold.
One of them would have been and was Norma Fiorino. Not there in when Sierra national did not endorse the de facto moratorium on fracking in NY, and fought with the NY chapter when it wanted to pursue the issue rigorously. Bigger sigh. Really not there on the huge issue of the devastating medium-term effect of methane on global warming; argueably the biggest environmental threat ever to all of us. And not there on the absurd notion that a national model for regulation of fracking, constructed with the help of the same set of drillers that brought us Dimock and many other fracking disasters, could possibly make any positive difference.
Brune would have us look to the future and not look back. When I do that I see the same thing: too little, too myopic and, probably too late. Ithaca and Binghamton, NY. They are not the utopian answers you are seeking. There is no perfect energy source, but natural gas drilling leaves as small a footprint as any energy source.
And that includes the extraction process. Its a fact. Deal with it. And grow up. Toxic farts? She has become deeply involved in trying to help her community avoid the problems their neighbors to the immediate south have tragically experienced, including, but not limited to, water and air pollution. Then, last week, I attended a lecture by Dr.
Sara Steingraber here in Charlotte, NC—a state where another shale formation is also threatened. Obviously, the industry that stands to financially benefit the most drilling companies, and the gas companies themselves defend their actions. And I thought obviously The Sierra Club would abhor the already-seen detrimental effects on the environment. Since , leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.
Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade. Then, on Oct. As Michael explains, the Sierra Club should never have taken the money. However, that was then, this is now! Forgiving the past actions of the Sierra Club allows us to move forward with a greater cause. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. Many people felt betrayed and disappointed to learn that the Sierra Club took money from the natural gas industry.
I liken it to finding out that your beloved mother cheated on your father. This happens in families. In some instances, the children break off ties with their mother and the relationship is lost forever. Other times, the children puzzle through it and accept that their mother is not perfect. In the end, the children still love their mother, forgive her and even learn a life lesson from it. We learn that we are all subject to temptation and seduction and that we need to redouble our efforts to guard against these things.
I am one of those children that still loves her mother. As I finished reading your statement I realized that I had tears in my eyes.
Thank you for so eloquently putting into words what many of us have been thinking. You are a new Rachel Carson. I stand with you. The Club sank to its lowest under Carl Pope. He waged a smear campaign against honorable members who wanted a candid discussion of U. This necessitated a frank examination of the fact that immigration is the major source of that growth. The result: the U. As for Immigration population issues have to be dealt with on a global scale, just like climate change immigration is moot.
On the first Earth day in , the US had million people and environmentalists were united behind stabilizing the population of the US. US birth rates were below replacement level and immigration levels from were about , per year.
The Immigration Reform Act of opened the floodgates on immigration and we now let in about 1. This immigration fueled population growth is environmentally disasterous for the US and the world, yet the Sierra Club does nothing to address it. Thank you Carl and Sierra Club for aiding and abetting the tripling of the population of the US in my lifetime. Ah, so we as Americans should not make any effort to reduce our CO2 emissions because it too has to be dealt with globally; domestic CO2 levels are moot.
I hope the people who are concerned about immigration, are also concerned about the huge agribusiness and other business interests who also support continued immigration behind the scenes as a steady source of cheap labor — while their public statements are designed to hypocritically fuel backlash against the people who come here as immigrants to carry out that work.
Clearly, we need to be thinking about the Earth as a whole, and the well-being of everyone on it, as we are all interdependent, like it or not…. Completely agree. And I remind folks that Cesar Chavez recognized illegal immigration was undermining efforts to raise wages and improve conditions for ag workers.
It has to be addressed. There are a lot of businesses that benefit from exploiting cheap immigrant labor. There are also ethnocentric groups and politicians that benefit from promoting mass immigration. Efforts to educate people on the population and environmental impact of mass immigration are not efforts to create a backlash against immigrants.
What I advocate for are immigration policies which will allow for stabilization of US population. That would be about , per year. See NumbersUSA. We deeply appreciate Mr. I certainly hope that Sierra Club has spent beyond 26 million in its fight against fracking. Brune was a refreshing change for that organization, and has taken difficult ethical steps.
Yet Ms. Steingraber has a point. Chesapeake Energy owes quite a bit to those who suffer due to its policies and industry. The fact that Sierra Club has some of their profits may be unethical in several ways. The Sierra Club is largely concerned with environmental issues, and such use of the donation should not be financial reimbursement to humans involved.
The damage is not financial, but widespread health of all the organisms affected, and pollution of ecosystems. Although I have lived in and now visit the home of the Sierra Club, I have not been a member, for several reasons:. They, themselves, historically schedule massive ecologically damaging intrusions into the wilderness. The old Sierra Club used to create truly massive encampments, and still offer group trips in far too large a number to avoid affecting or respecting wilderness values.
The remaining limited wilderness experience is not about overwhelming the wild. Local Sierra Club has promoted things like adding picnic tables and enlarging trails for purposes other than respect for nature.
Many writers here have made valid points, while some are just hysterically attacking whomever they feel they can, with energy better used in directly responding to the larger issue. They will no doubt vote for Obama, although he is still pursuing policies directly counter to the environmental and the personal health of our nation. Yet, his hands are more tied than yours, mine, or Mr. All politicians must compromise. I live in upstate NY above the Marcellus Shale.
I learned nothing from the site. I quickly found that it was the tiny, grassroots groups that did have the information. And it gets worse. These grassroots volunteers were working without pay, going without sleep, giving up vacation time and family time and time with their friends and volunteer time that they had planned to devote to other things like building sustainable communities to try to save their communities from the ravages of shale gas extraction.
In , after decades of donating to the Sierra Club, I made the painful decision not to renew my membership. I was furious. I felt betrayed. I still do. I recognize that there are many individuals within the Sierra Club who are aware of the dangers of fracking for shale gas and who are working actively within the Club to try to change national Club policy.
And I know that some of the individual chapters of the Sierra Club are also fully aware of the dangers of fracking for shale gas, and that some within those individual chapters would like to see shale gas extraction banned. I know that in any crisis of this sort there are some who rebel and some who try to change things from within. Maybe those who are working from within the Club will be able to effect real change.
I hope they can and I wish them luck. At present, the list is probably not followed in its entirety at any shale gas extraction site in this country, nor is this list likely to be followed at all shale gas extraction sites for a long, long time, if ever. On top of this, the general public is almost certainly not aware of this list of best practices or of how unlikely it is that the gas industry will ever actually implement all of these best practices.
I have to conclude that the national Sierra Club is trying to have its cake and eat it too. The sad fact is that even if best practices were employed at all well pads, the sheer number of gas wells required to extract significant amounts of shale gas would lead to the industrialization of vast amounts of land.
Each individual shale gas well depletes rapidly, so in order to keep production from falling, more and more and more gas wells must be drilled and fracked.
This not only results in human suffering and environmental destruction, it also eats up a lot of money that would be better spent on sustainable energy development. And then there is the question of shale gas contributions to global warming, which, according to some researchers, may rival those of coal.
Other researchers dispute this, but a recent study of an actual gas field found twice the methane leakage expected. So at the very least, I think a reasonable person would say that further research should be done on the greenhouse gas contributions of shale gas extraction before anyone concludes that shale gas will help with the global warming problem and before we frack up vast amounts of land.
Given all of this, why is the Sierra Club NOT coming out forcefully for a ban or at least for a nationwide moratorium on shale gas extraction pending the results of further research? Yes, the remaining wilderness areas should be protected, and yes, I want wolves and polar bears and the whole, wonderful, diverse web of wildlife to survive. But real environmental awareness begins at home. Please, Sierra Club: issue a real apology, take a real stand against shale gas, and start considering human beings to be a part of the environment too.
And good grief! I am not a Sierra Club member, but read and valued Living Downstream. I would be very interested in any sources he is relying on for those statements. Coal has been a godsend.
Modern regulations and mining techniques sans the mountaintop removal stuff they do down in WV leave a miniscule environmental footprint compared to years past.
To protect the environment and human health we must work together. Everyone is needed and plays an important role: Victim-activist-researchers like Dr. The larger groups have the legal and scientific expertise to read hundreds of pages of bills and testimony and can mount a credible defense in Congress against increasing corporate control of science and environmental policy. Fragmentation of the environmental movement is just what industry delights in. The fragmentation began when the Sierra Club accepted the money and promoted shale gas as a bridge fuel.
The court of public opinion may feel otherwise. If you judge others the way you are judging the club you are no better than the tea partiers and the religious right. To all the other non Sierra Club members you are all just looking for something to bitch at about the club.
I bet you never have been to a club meeting or participated in any club action. I so hope you never live near a coal processing plant or near a mountaintop which has been stripped barren and the streams and valleys destroyed. If the late Judy Bonds were still around she would tell you all to take your criticisms of the club and put them in another dark hole.
In reply to Donna Maxwell: I grew up in the s in Scranton, PA amid the destruction caused by anthracite coal mining. Some of the countless, unpaid hours that I have spent on the shale gas issue over the last four years were spent phoning and writing my representatives at the local, state, and federal levels to make them aware of my concerns about shale gas in general and about specific legislative matters relating to shale gas extraction.
Greg Pallast makes sound suggestions on what the Club would need to do to come clean and become transparent. The members deserve that. It is obvious you still have time on your hand to bash others perhaps, you need to actually write a few more letters. Here's a list of over 50 places in California named after John Muir. Climate activism, racial justice intersect in Bay Area protests.
Top of the News. The Chronicle is tracking accidental drug overdose deaths in the city to shed light on the increasingly deadly drug overdose epidemic. Newsom hiatus drives home lawmakers' difficult work-family juggling act. By Dustin Gardiner, Dustin Gardiner. What happened? By Danielle Echeverria and Ron Kroichick.
0コメント