Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Polluting, Greedyrich Sierra Clubbers

  1. Dec 4, 2003 #1
    Sierra Magazine

    The latest issue of the very hypocritical, greedybigbusiness Sierra magazine begins with (gasp!) an advertisement for Toyota automobiles on the inside of the cover jacket!

    Since the Sierra Club habitually trumpets the ills of "global warming" and "pollution" ad nauseum, one must wonder why on earth it would allow sponsorship by greedybigbusiness which pollutes and promotes global warming?
    Anyone, anyone? Anyone?

    Let's go to the back cover - yet another ad by a biggreedybusiness, viz Nikon. The first words in the Nikon ad - "stopthecar". Once again, the Sierra Club is linked to automobiles and pollution. After all, how many pictures in frames around your house were taken somewhere else, somewhere that you drived to, in a (cough, cough) polluting, global warming car? Most all of them. Moreover, these Nikon cameras are very expensive. How much better could such money be used to feed or clothe someone in dire need - somebody homeless?
    Anyone, anyone? Anyone?

    I shall further expand on the incredible hypocrisy of the Greedy Sierra Club by citing dozens of its advertising sponsors, from whom Greedy Sierra Club accepts filthy lucre, while simultaneously condemning the pollution unavoidable while using such products promoted within the polluting pages of Sierra.

    Page 2: Nikiwax - waterproofing for expensive hiking footwear, used only by people who have traveled afar in pursuit of hedonistic pleasures at the expense of the poor and downtrodden, whose bread was taken out of their very mouths.

    Page 4: EarthJustice - a legal foundation advertising here to save "coho salmon" instead of hungry human beings. Fish first, then people? Is that humanitarian? For whom are we "saving the earth" if not human beings?

    Page 4: L.L.Bean's Gore-Tex Mountain Treads - $99 hiking shoes. Can't one buy suitable hiking shoes for less than $99? And use the balance to “feed the homeless” etc, etc. Anyone, anyone? Anyone?

    Page 5: Bose home theater systems. (Full page ad! What a waste of resources, such as ink and paper.) No price is given for this high tech, resource consuming DVD player, but the greedyrich Bose Corporation will finance it for you at 19.8% annual percentage rate. I’ll bet it costs a bunch – enough to feed and house
    several poor homeless drug addicts for two weeks. “Compassionate (ha ha ha)”
    liberals would help homeless drug addicts rather than buy a Bose home theater system. Strangely, I did not see one single advertisement soliciting funds for the urgently needy.

    Page 6: Pax World mutual funds, which of course invest in only the most pristine and politically correct greedyrich bigbusinesses. Politically correct mantras circle the advertisement, including "green, not greed." But "greed" is having so much money, you can invest it in mutual funds, rather than give it to the ever needy poor and downtrodden.

    Page 7: Swheat Scoop - natural wheat litter, for cats, no less. First, cats eat meat almost exclusively. Now as every Greeny knows, producing meat requires vast quantities of water. Bad, bad, bad! Secondly, why would any thinking human being waste money on feeding good-for-nothing cats while human beings are dying by the millions. That is unless the self-professed Sierra Clubbers hate humans and love stupid cats, which even the world famous and widely beloved Snoopy intensely dislikes.

    Page 11: Alaska - advertisement. Anyone going to Alaska without burning fossil fuel, for planes, trains, and automobiles? Anyone, anyone? Anyone?
    I didn't think so.

    Page 12: Sierra Club Mutual Funds: How on EARTH could the Sierra Club invest in "companies that are environmentally and socially aware" when the Sierra Club itself is clearly environmentally and socially clueless! Just read its ads!

    P 13: Sea Eagle Sport Kayak: Non-biodegradable inflatable plastic kayak! Aaaagh! It is made from . . . chemicals, petrochemicals even! You have to drive your car to the river, lake, or ocean to use it. People are living under freeways, and greedyrich Sierra Clubbers buy plastic kayaks and enjoy themselves?
    What is this world coming to. Anyone, anyone? Anyone?

    Page 19: Sierra Club books and calendars for "holiday giving": You can't walk to the library and RECYCLE a book? You have to BUY one and enrich the VERY RICH, VERY GREEDY Sierra Club already?

    Page 22: Green Century Funds: Yet ANOTHER greedybigbusiness trying to pry your money from you to invest solely to MAKE MORE MONEY for your own greedyrich self.

    Page 22: Campmor camping equipment: You go out into the wilderness just for fun, by polluting car, no doubt, as millions, perhaps billions of other Americans are living in the cold, cruel wilderness by necessity. Shame, shame, greedyrich Sierra Club shame.

    Page 52: Sierra Club Charitable Gift Annuity: Are YOU "greedyrich"? Loaded? Fork it over to the GreedyRich Sierra Club. They'll keep you fat because you kept Sierra Club fat. Single life annuity rates of 6.5% to 11.3%. After you croak, the residual is all ours. They're the greedyrich Sierra Club. They just call themselves something else. Sometimes "progressive," sometimes "moderate," but never EVER "extremist" or "polluting" or "greedyrich."

    Page 53: Sierra Club Outings (12 page ad GreedySierraClub REALLY REALLY wants you to fly all over the world,and make them more money. The hell with Kyoto!) : Alaska & Arctic Canada: $4,295 PER PERSON. But don't worry. That includes a "round-trip flight from Anchorage to Nome: in a polluting, global warming airplane, where you arrived, no doubt, in yet another fossil fuel, anti-Kyoto Treaty jet aircraft. Greedyrich Leftist Hypocrisy is like that.
    It never ever recognizes its own hypocritical transgressions. Ever.
    P.S. The incredible variety of globe trotting, air polluting,richgreedy resource consuming vacations range from California to Asia, to Bhutan. How nice.

    Page 67: GreenKarat: "ecologically responsible jewelry," they call it.
    I’m sorry, but no jewelry is "ecologically responsible." Every piece on earth wastes precious resources, depletes our available supply of rare gold, and silver, and gems. This money could more responsibly be used to help "people of color" downtrodden for centuries by greedyrich folk frolicking all over Bhutan and Alaska with their filthy lucre stripped from the hands of the proletariat class.

    Page 68: Australia's Great Resorts: Fly a polluting Qantas Airlines to Australia, while poor immigrants from Mexico live ten to a room. What do you care! You belong to Sierra Club.

    Page 69: AmazonVoyage.com and UltimateHikes.co.NZ: Fly a polluting, anti-KyotoKyotoKyoto jet airplane to the Amazon or New Zealand. When you return, you can still flaunt your wretched hypocrisy by making fun of "stupid chimp" George Bush for HIS "anti-environmental" record, while overlooking your own.

    P 70: 17 advertisements, thus maximizing the greed of Sierra Club in trying to squeeze every last dollar it can from advertisers promoting "Galapagos," "Machu Picchu," ""Peru," "Belize," "Wood fired hot tubs," Central America, "Asia, Africa, the Americas, & Europe," and even "Wild encounters with the spotted dolphin."

    Now if anyone can tell me how to enjoy even one of these advertised pollutions without exacerbating what Leftist Wackos call "global warming," I will buy you a "wood fired hot tub", advertised in the GreedyRich Sierra Club Magazine.
    Although these Leftist Extremists don't want any tree anywhere cut down, so I don't know how you can even use wood to heat your water.
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 4, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You condemn the Sierra Club for being "leftist-extremists". You condemn them as hypocrites for not being absolutely altruistic, therefore they are not good at being "leftist-extremists". The only problem is they are not, nor ever tried to be "leftist-extremists".

    You really should be on some sort of medication. You seem to be tormented by the Sierra Club and the ghost of Carl Sagan. Perhaps the flouride in your drinking water has driven you insane? Is anyone else out to get you? Maybe the Queen of England, or George Soros?

  4. Dec 4, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I happen to agree with him though. Environmentalists groups in general are by and large hypocritical in their views and actions. And the end result of their efforts does more to HARM the environment than to help it.

    My usual example of course is with the harm they cause by preventing the power industry from switching off of coal.
  5. Dec 4, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    purity of purpose = totally ineffectual?

    Perhaps these environmentalists are a bit like Jonathan's free range socialists - they come in many, many different shades and hues.

    Then too there's the ever-present issue of objectives - how badly do you want to see a dramatic reduction in the use of radio-nuclides in industry, medicine, etc? If you're our fellow poster theroyprocess, the answer would have to be 'no desire to see this outcome at all', because her methods are clearly ineffective.

    Good environmentalists are no doubt good politicians, and well-versed in the art of compromise.
  6. Dec 5, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Agreed Nereid, the toughest reality of all to swallow is the reality that you won't always get everything you want and in order to get anything you will need to compromise.

    I see two types of environmentalists: Greenpeace types who are completely uncompromising in ideas or actions. They are essentially terrorist organizations that do nothing but destroy things.

    Sierra Club types compromise their ideals for the sake of their own power/money and accomplish nothing for their cause. Accomplishing nothing is LESS destructive than actively causing harm, but it is still destructive.
  7. Dec 5, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    black and white only Russ?

    Only two types, Russ? And, if understand what you say correctly, both are ineffective, in the sense that neither will/can/have realise(d) ANY of their objectives?

    Perhaps we could look at this from a different perspective; how did it come to pass that:
    + Germany has quite stringent recycling laws (producer pays)?
    + SO2 powerplant emissions are down, what, 90% in the last ~decade or two?
    + thousands (millions?) of square km of marine national parks have been created, off the coasts of many countries?
    + the UK government is moving to change agriculture policy towards including things various environmental metrics (not just food security, jobs, etc)?
    + and much, much more.

    To be sure, none of these things happened because producers and polluters felt their actions were not environmentally-friendly, or morally indefensible.
  8. Dec 5, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Could Germany's tough recycling laws be the result of the political power of the Green party there? Even stronger recently when the Social Democrats have to make coallition with the Greens in order to stay in power.

    By contrast Nader only took under 3% of the popular vote in 2000, and is expected to take much less in 2004, if he runs.
  9. Dec 5, 2003 #8
    This thread makes about as much sense as a Gene Ray "Timecube" rant.
  10. Dec 5, 2003 #9
    I think it is important to separate the cause from the organizations. A big organization often loses sight of goals once it gets past a certain level.
  11. Dec 6, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: black and white only Russ?

    The vast majority of environmental success stories happen in spite of, not because of environmentalist groups. They just don't have a long enough view to see and affect the big picture. They focus on small, specific pet projects (usually OPPOSITION to other people's projects).

    Most meaningful changes come from the general public via the scientific community because the scientific community is where real solutions are thought up.

    Can you name a specific organization that drove any of those changes you listed?

    Please note, environmentalist groups aren't alone in this - I consider virtually all special interest groups to be pretty much the same way.

    And it kinda fits with what Zero said - generally its the smaller environmentalist groups that focus on small, individual issues. Greenpeace is pretty big but still follows that model - find something you don't like and oppose it (destroy it) locally. Bigger environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club are more interested in their own power and influence than anything else.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2003
  12. Dec 6, 2003 #11
    What confuses me most about the environmentalist groups is this: you see them protecting odd species of owl, but you rarely seem to see them helping small communities where factories are dumping mercury into the drinking water. Whenever there is a whistleblower on one of these real environmental cases, it is usually one person working alone to convince the government to do its job and enforce regulations. I wish greenpeace would stay off the boats, and maybe do some real good.
  13. Dec 6, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    I think some of this has to do with the coverage green peace gets, they were very helpful in getting the Governor of Mass to disallow a continuance on the coal plant in salem (one of heaviest polluters in the NE).. there were no boats involved.:wink:

    Sorry, but this is just a dum thing to say. With L.L. Beans warrantee paying $99 bucks for shoes that will be replaced for free if they wear out is a very thrifty use of money.
  14. Dec 6, 2003 #13
    A moment just to say that GoreTex boots are worth every penny.
  15. Dec 6, 2003 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How messy is the reality?

    Let's take a point that SelfAdjoint made, about how the extraordinarily stringent recycling rules came to be in Germany.

    AFAIK, putting the responsibility for 'cradle-to-grave' materials management onto producers was a really big deal, across a broad spectrum of environmentalists, a decade or two ago. This included Greenpeace. If you look at what's enacted in legislation in Germany, and implemented in practice, your only conclusion could be that the environmentalists succeeded in their objective.

    How did this happen? Certainly not by the CDU or SDU (I think they're one of Jonathan's 'free-range socialists') losing at the elections to Greenpeace candidates! In fact, IIRC, the SDU saw that this was a concern of the voters, saw that the Green Party had done a great deal of the hard work needed to iron out the details, and simply 'borrowed' the policies, claiming them as their own. When they won the elections, they implemented their campaign pledges.

    Another example, of a quite different kind. There's an Pacific atoll which all nations agree is US territory - Palmyra I think - which used to be used for all kinds of non-environmental things by the US military. An environmental group (Nature Conservancy? Sierra Club?) bought it, and turned it into a wildlife reserve (it had been planned as a nuclear waste dump).
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook