The Sierra Club draws much of its credibility from its claim to represent a large, grassroots membership. Having had the task of freeing my elderly mother from her enormous piles of junk mail, and tracking her charitable contributions, I know exactly what that means: Send old ladies mail about saving butterflies, collect their $25 checks, and do whatever the hell you please.
The incentives that lead some environmental groups to litigate rather than invest that same time and $ into direct conservation actions are key to consider, and must change if we want better outcomes (for an example: https://www.perc.org/2024/12/19/forest-fight/). We need to reform proceduralist environmental laws, and replace them with outcome-oriented ones. I want a world where low-nature-impact projects are predictably faster and cheaper than high-impact ones, impacts are mitigated via market-based approaches, and all projects get to a yes/no decision much faster without high litigation risk and endless veto points.
As a nuclear engineer working for a large southeastern utility, I was directly involved with an expansion of used nuclear fuel storage at the plant at which I was working. A small and vocal group introduced legislation that obstructed the very safe project causing a three year delay and millions of dollars in legal fees that were ultimately passed on to ratepayers. Their technical argument relied upon junk science, and they refused to listen to the details that rendered their arguments moot. The leader accosted me saying "we don't care about your science, we're trying to shut down this plant."
Another example is the same group's attempt to prevent initial licensing of the plant, resulting in an unnecessary delay of at least two years resulting in costs passed on to ratepayers that contributed about 25% of the total $4B costs. See the AI link below for further details. Being personally involved, I can attest the numbers presented are conservative.
I am very glad to see this being discussed. It has been my personal mantra for 45 years!
In Europe there exists a small, but very vocal minority of people who believe in „degrowth“, who for mainly environmental reasons demand a reduction in industry. They do not seek economic growth, balanced with environmental concerns, they seek the active destruction of industrial capabilities.
Of course there are no numbers for this, put giving these people any voice at all has probably been the greatest harm to the public view of environmental preservation. I think that it is actually quite simple for most people to accept that environmental concerns are legitimate and should be accounted for, but when someone who is associated with „degrowth“ advocates for anything at all, people will (and frankly should be) extremely suspicious.
The Sierra Club draws much of its credibility from its claim to represent a large, grassroots membership. Having had the task of freeing my elderly mother from her enormous piles of junk mail, and tracking her charitable contributions, I know exactly what that means: Send old ladies mail about saving butterflies, collect their $25 checks, and do whatever the hell you please.
Exactly!
The incentives that lead some environmental groups to litigate rather than invest that same time and $ into direct conservation actions are key to consider, and must change if we want better outcomes (for an example: https://www.perc.org/2024/12/19/forest-fight/). We need to reform proceduralist environmental laws, and replace them with outcome-oriented ones. I want a world where low-nature-impact projects are predictably faster and cheaper than high-impact ones, impacts are mitigated via market-based approaches, and all projects get to a yes/no decision much faster without high litigation risk and endless veto points.
Wow, thank you for sharing that article, Sophie. I had no idea these groups are actually financially incentivized to bring lawsuits!
This is really helpful - thank you for going into this topic!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Well done and well said, my friend.
As a nuclear engineer working for a large southeastern utility, I was directly involved with an expansion of used nuclear fuel storage at the plant at which I was working. A small and vocal group introduced legislation that obstructed the very safe project causing a three year delay and millions of dollars in legal fees that were ultimately passed on to ratepayers. Their technical argument relied upon junk science, and they refused to listen to the details that rendered their arguments moot. The leader accosted me saying "we don't care about your science, we're trying to shut down this plant."
Another example is the same group's attempt to prevent initial licensing of the plant, resulting in an unnecessary delay of at least two years resulting in costs passed on to ratepayers that contributed about 25% of the total $4B costs. See the AI link below for further details. Being personally involved, I can attest the numbers presented are conservative.
I am very glad to see this being discussed. It has been my personal mantra for 45 years!
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a15d2d64f5881918a0f551084847bff
And I forgot to mention that I absolutely consider myself an environmentalist!
Wow! Great piece. Yeah, allowing a grassroots group like the Sierra Club to dictate policy is like allowing your weirdest neighbor to take charge. I think you and I should connect? Sophie Gilbert flagged you in a note about my piece here: https://earthhope.substack.com/p/the-timber-war-radicals-who-want?r=31a4s5&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
In Europe there exists a small, but very vocal minority of people who believe in „degrowth“, who for mainly environmental reasons demand a reduction in industry. They do not seek economic growth, balanced with environmental concerns, they seek the active destruction of industrial capabilities.
Of course there are no numbers for this, put giving these people any voice at all has probably been the greatest harm to the public view of environmental preservation. I think that it is actually quite simple for most people to accept that environmental concerns are legitimate and should be accounted for, but when someone who is associated with „degrowth“ advocates for anything at all, people will (and frankly should be) extremely suspicious.
Don’t waste too much time defending poorly planned solar projects.